Preamble

The Rouse met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords),

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WEST RIDING REGIMENT (P. RYAN).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Joseph Patrick Ryan, No. 51,911, West Riding Regiment, was in July, 1916, classified at Pontefract as medically unfit; that he was called up in May, 1918; that he was subsequently discharged as permanently unfit; that prior to being called up he worked at arduous jobs, which he was able to discharge without loss of time; and that he is now suffering from debility due to service and unable to follow his employment and has been refused any pension for debility; and whether he will inquire into this case?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The disability in this case was regarded as constitutional, but aggravation by service was admitted, which, however, was considered to have passed away when, on examination by a Medical Appeal Board in 1920, no remaining disablement was found to exist. The decision of the Ministry was confirmed on
appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and being now, therefore, final, I regret that the case cannot be re-opened

ROYAL AIR FORCE (J. CARTER).

Mr. PALING: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that J. Carter, of 13, Apley Road, Doncaster, and late of the Royal Air Force, was constantly undergoing treatment from July, 1917, to September, 1918, for rheumatism brought on by exposure while night flying, and was then in hospital as the result of an accident until he was demobilised in February, 1919: that since his demobilisation Carter has constantly had to cease work owing to recurring illness; that he has been totally incapacitated since May, 1922, through rheumatism and pulmonary tuberculosis; that Carter's health record previous to joining the Army was good; that his local doctor is strongly of opinion that his disease was contracted during his period of military service; and that this man will probably never be able to work again; and, in view of these circumstances, will he take steps to have this case re-opened so that the evidence which has accumulated since his claim was rejected in November, 1920, may be taken into consideration?

Major TRYON: There is no available evidence that this man suffered during service from the disabilities claimed, nor did he make any claim in respect of them until a year after he was demobilised. Moreover, a medical board, by which he was examined at the time of his demobilisation, found no disability. The rejection of the claim to pension has been confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and is now, therefore, final.

Mr. PALING: In these numerous cases that are arising, where the local doctors entirely disagree with the medical board, is there any possibility of getting a conference of some description, where the opinions of these local doctors can be taken into consideration, so that these people may be given a chance?

Major TRYON: The suggestion that these people do not get a chance is, of course, inaccurate. The views of the private doctors are put before the Tribunal, and it is our wish that they should receive consideration before that body.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases are on record where, after a month's diagnosis in a tuberculosis sanatorium, the doctors have certified that the man was suffering from tuberculosis contracted while on service, and yet the decision has been given against that diagnosis of the superintendent of the sanatorium?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

HOSPITALS AND TREATMENT CENTRES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is his policy to gradually close down the hospitals attached to his Department and in their stead to establish centres for the treatment of ex-service men who are eligible and in need of treatment; and, if so, who is it intended to appoint to run and supervise such centres?

Major TRYON: I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. I may, however, explain that the demand for in-patient treatment is diminishing, and that the gradual reduction of accommodation in Ministry hospitals follows naturally. A considerable number of out-patient clinics and departments have already been established at convenient centres throughout the country, and these are administered either by the Ministry or by civil hospitals or the British Red Cross Society on an agreed basis.

FINAL AWARDS.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many final awards were made during the 12 months ending 31st March, 1923; in how many cases men in receipt of conditional pensions were given final weekly allowances; whether any of these men were suffering from permanent deterioration as a result of War service; if so, whether the final weekly allowance was based on an actuarial assessment of the amount a man would have received had he been in receipt of a small pension for the rest of his life; and whether any reduction and, if so, what has been effected in the cost of pensions in the cases of men who have been given final awards?

Major TRYON: The total number of awards declared to be final during the period referred to was approximately
246,000. In about 128,000 of the cases in which the final award was at the rate of less than 20 per cent. the men were previously in receipt of a conditional pension. I am unable to say in what proportion of these cases the disability was permanent, but in only a minority of cases (amounting to not more than one-third) of the whole number was the disability certified to be of indeterminate duration, and in most of these cases the disability was a minor injury in a final and stationary condition. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. Compensation by way of pension is only payable under the Warrants and Regulations for disablement at the rate of 20 per cent. and upwards. For minor disablement below 20 per cent. the aggregate amount of compensation that may be paid is limited, under the provision of the Warrants, to £200.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reduction effected in the cost with regard to final awards, as asked in the last part of the question on the Paper?

Major TRYON: It is not possible to give that. In some individual cases there is a saving, and in some cases the expenditure is larger.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the net result, whether it is a loss or a gain?

Major TRYON: There is no net result of loss or gain, but simply a considerable payment of money from the public purse under the provisions of the warrants.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: But has not a direct question been asked in the fifth paragraph of the question on the Paper, namely, what is the effect on the cost of pensions in the cases of men who have been given final awards?

Major TRYON: I cannot agree that there is a saving. In some cases there is a saving, and in others there is additional expenditure.

Mr. LOWTH: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of final awards in four-year cases made during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1922; what was the number of conditional pensions that, on the award being made final, were replaced by a final weekly
allowance and what was the average period for which final weekly allowances were awarded?

Major TRYON: The total number of men examined and recommended for final awards in four-year cases during the year referred to was 54,600. The number of these cases which were at the rate of 20 per cent. or upwards and under 20 per cent., respectively, was not at the outset specially recorded, but for the period for which a record was kept of the numbers of each of the two classes recommended by medical boards, recommendations in favour of permanent pensions were in the proportion of six to four recommendations for awards of less than 20 per cent. The proportion of the former class shows a steady increase. In addition to these some 64,000 permanent pensions were made statutory final, and a great proportion of these are four-year cases. The average duration of final weekly allowances is about 80 weeks.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (SERGEANT-MAJOR J. MILLER).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Sergeant-Major J. Miller, No. 143,728, Royal Air Force, has applied for a disability pension through the Air Ministry; whether the application has been passed on to his Department; if so, is he aware that the applicant has been off work for eight weeks through bronchitis, influenza, and malaria; and, under these circumstances, can a decision as to pension be arrived at without further delay?

Major TRYON: I am inquiring into the facts of this case, and will write to my hon. Friend at an early date.

NON-COMMISSIONED SERVICE (CAPTAIN H. McL. PATON).

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds Captain Hugh McLaren Paton, late officer in His Majesty's Regular Army, serving with the Cheshire Regiment, and now residing at 20, Fontaine Road, Streatham, S.W.16, is denied the right to any pension or gratuity for 11 years, 111 days' uncommissioned service; and what steps, if any, he is prepared to take to remedy this injustice?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): I have been asked to reply. As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Captain Paton, on retirement, was entitled by Royal Warrant to receive the benefits of one or other, but not both, of two alternative Regulations. Under the one he was entitled to a fixed gratuity of £450, and under the other to a cumulative gratuity calculated at the rate of £100 a year for each year of commissioned service. In either case he was further entitled to a payment of £800 as compensation for compulsory retirement. The fixed gratuity of £450 is applicable only to officers retiring with previous service in the ranks. The other gratuity is not affected by previous service in the ranks, but in Captain Paton's case it was, nevertheless, the more favourable, since it amounted to £700 as against £450. He received the larger sum accordingly, together with the £800, that is, £1,500 in all. An officer is obviously not entitled to benefit by the combination in his favour of two different and alternative Regulations, and I cannot admit that any injustice whatever has occurred.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied that officials, male or female, employed by his Ministry in the Irish Free State and paid for by the British taxpayer are ex-service men or the wives or daughters of ex-service men; by whom are the appointments made; and what is the total estimated cost of the payment and administration of pensions in the Irish Free Sate for the present financial year?

Major TRYON: The staff directly employed by the Ministry as temporary officials and clerks in the Irish Free State comprises 389 ex-service men, 3 non-service men, and 25 women. The women were transferred from local committees, and have been reduced from 49 to 25 since the 1st February last; further reductions in this number are being made. The estimated cost of payments made in the Irish Free State in respect of the administration of pensions is £144,000 for 1923–24.

Colonel NEWMAN: What will be the total cost of the pensions during the financial year?

Major TRYON: I cannot say without notice.

Colonel NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many local war pensions committees are in existence in the Irish Free State; is there any one official directly responsible to him for the work of these committees and the administration of war pensions generally, having regard to the fact that the Free State is outside the control of Imperial Parliament, and makes no contribution to the cost of war services or of the war debt?

Major TRYON: Excluding the counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, which are included in the area of the North Ireland War Pensions Committee, there are in the Irish Free State 20 local war pensions committees and one war pensions committee. The Regional Director, Ulster, is responsible for the work of the Committee and the administration of war pensions so far as regards the counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, and the Regional Director, South Ireland, for the work of the committees and administration of war pensions for the remaining counties in the Irish Free State.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is real control over pensions in the Irish Free State?

Major TRYON: The position is one of considerable difficulty which vie are doing our best to deal with satisfactorily.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Pensions take especial care to keep under their own control ex-service men in Ireland.

Major TRYON: That is so. We consider it our duty to do what we can for these ex-service men in the South of Ireland.

APPEALS.

Mr. PIELOU: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the late Mr. It. Mason, of 81, Glover Street, West Bromwich, was granted a final weekly allowance by the Minister of Pensions on the 7th November, 1921, which
was confirmed by an Appeal Board on the 18th April, 1922; that this man appealed to the Lord Chancellor's tribunal but the appeal was not heard until the 7th February, 1923, 10 months after the. Ministry of Pensions' decision; that the appeal was allowed on the 7th February and that the Ministry of Pensions notified an award of 156 weeks at 7s. 6d. a week, plus £40 final gratuity shortly afterwards, but that up to the 24th March this year no pension had been paid; that this unfortunate man committed suicide on that date because he had lost all hope; and whether, in view of the tragic circumstances connected with this case, he will take steps to see that unreasonable delays of this kind do not occur in future?

Major TRYON: It is not the case, as has been publicly stated, that this man was kept waiting for several years for pension. On the contrary, he was continuously in receipt of compensation from my Department from his discharge in December, 1917, until the 13th December, 1922. There was unhappily some delay in the hearing of the appeal which he made in August, but in view of the charges which have been made I should perhaps point out that the case would have been decided in November had he not failed to attend before the tribunal on the 15th of that month, when his appeal was listed for hearing. The break in payment which occurred after the 13th December last would also have been avoided.

Mr. WARNE: 22.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of appeals against final awards received by the Ministry during the three months ended March, 1923, also the number awaiting decision by the tribunal, and the number remaining in the hands of the Ministry on that date?

Major TRYON: Approximately 15,650 appeals to the Assessment Tribunal were received during the 12 weeks ending on the 24th March last. At that date some 16,650 appeals were outstanding, of which about 9,000 were with the tribunal authorities, the remainder being either with the Ministry or in course of transmission to or from the tribunals.

Mr. T. THOMSON: In view of the tremendous number of appeals waiting and the delay that takes place, as much
as four or five months, will the right hon. Gentleman do something to expedite the hearings?

Major TRYON: We are watching and keeping in touch with the tribunals in order to represent to the Lord Chancellor if we thought there was delay. I understand some additional tribunals are being set up. The present rate at which appeals are being dealt with by these tribunals is 1,100 per week.

Mr. SHORT: Are the decisions made retrospective where this delay has occurred?

Major TRYON: Certainly.

NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (T. MANSEL).

Mr. CAIRNS: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the claim of Mrs. Mary Mansel, of 70, Porten Street, Ashington, Northumberland, widow of the late Private Timothy Mansel, No. 3,244, Northumberland Fusiliers, has been disallowed before a tribunal; that Timothy Mansel was awarded 60 per cent., and totally and permanently discharged from any form of military service; and that the precis showed that for him, his wife, and three children £2 1s. 8d. weekly was allowed; and will he open this case again, as the widow and three children are in distressed circumstances?

Major TRYON: This man was invalided from the Army in 1915 on account of nephritis and was admitted to pension for that disability. He died nearly seven years later from an acute illness which lasted only a few days and which could not be connected with service. The decision of the Ministry rejecting the widow's claim to pension has been confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and is now, therefore, final.

Mr. CAIRNS: How are this widow of an ex-serviceman and her three children to live?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is doubtless aware that we are by law not allowed to compensate for any disablement or death which is not due to the War. This unfortunate man died of a sudden illness seven years after the War and it is decided that his illness was not due to the War.

Mr. CAIRNS: Can she not go to another tribunal for a widow's pension?

Major TRYON: I have told the hon. Member that the decision is, by law and by the decision of the House of Commons, final.

Mr. CAIRNS: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to get the law altered in favour of this woman?

Major TRYON: No, Sir.

AMALGAMATION OF AREAS (NORTHERN REGION).

Mr. WARNE: 17.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to amalgamate the Tynemouth area with the Newcastle and Hexham area; if so, what will be the days and hours of opening of the Tynemouth area office in North Shields; and whether the proposals with respect to amalgamation of areas in the Northern region have been submitted to the Regional Advisory Council for consideration?

Major TRYON: The possibility of amalgamating the staff in the Newcastle, Hexham and District area with that in the Tynemouth, Wallsend and District area is under consideration. The War Pensions Committees for the two areas have been invited to express their views, and when their observations have been received I will give the matter my personal consideration.

Mr. WARNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the benefits accruing from these larger areas sufficiently compensate for the fact that confidence is shattered thereby?

Major TRYON: I believe the machinery is very much better than the old.

REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. HAYDAY: 25.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in the event of members of the staff at regional headquarters, Nottingham, being offered appointments in other towns the Ministry will pay the cost of removal?

Major TRYON: Transfer in these cases is the alternative to termination of services, and I regret that I am unable to authorise the payment of removal expenses.

Mr. HAYDAY: What actually are the conditions, either of notice to terminate engagements or of transference to any other available situation?

Major TRYON: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the full statement explaining to these employés of the Ministry what their position is.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is it not a fact that in many cases a formal week's notice only has been issued to those who were being dismissed in consequence of the removal to Birmingham from Nottingham?

Major TRYON: That is not in accordance with the information I received yesterday. If the hon. Member will send me his information I shall be happy to look at it.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament from this area to discuss the whole question?

Major TRYON: The House knows I am always willing to receive Members of Parliament.

Mr. HAYDAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the only person employed at the regional headquarters, Nottingham, for whom another post has been found is the regional director; whether he has been appointed to a similar post in another region at a salary of £875 a year; and whether this official is receiving at the same time a pension of £1,000 a year for service in another Department?

Major TRYON: The facts are as stated; but I may add that no other officer at Nottingham has, so far, become redundant and that, as I informed the hon. Member on the 19th instant, every competent officer employed there will be offered employment in some other part of the Ministry.

Mr. HAYDAY: Has this gentleman had his furniture removed and the charges paid?

Major TRYON: Not to my knowledge. I must have notice.

OVER-ISSUES (RECOVERY).

Mr. SHORT: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is a one-year limit
for the recovery of over-issue of pensions or allowances, such over-issues being due to errors on the part of the staff of the Ministry; whether any instruction has been issued instructing officers to effect recovery of over-payments made subsequent to let April, 1921; and, if so, will he cause instructions to be issued that no recovery of pensions or allowances made in error shall be effected in respect of any payments made prior to 1st April, 1922?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 19th April. The arrangements I then referred to will apply to all over-issues. Provided the over-issue was not due to fraud or misrepresentation and was not notified to the pensioner within 12 months no recovery will be effected where the over-payment terminated before the 1st April, 1922. Instructions to this effect have already been issued.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider in the case of an over-payment whether he will make the amount taken off the pension as small as possible?

Major TRYON: I shall be happy to consider the suggestion. We are making, arrangements to have these cases considered in the areas in order to avoid bringing so many up to London.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not make it a flat rate of a penny a week?

SHERWOOD FORESTERS (C. MAY).

Mr. C. WHITE: 35.
asked the Minister of Pensions, seeing that the loss of two fingers from wounds entitles a pensioner to 20 per cent. pension, as is provided for in the Royal Warrant, why the pension of ex-Sergeant C. May, No. 202,605, of Matlock, late of the Sherwood Foresters, who is a married man, has been reduced below 20 per cent. and a final pension and gratuity awarded him?

Major TRYON: The opinion of my medical advisers is that the disability suffered is not equivalent to the loss of two fingers. The man has, however, appealed to the tribunal against that finding and will thus have the opportunity of substantiating his claim that the assessment is inadequate.

COMMUTATION.

Mr. C. WHITE: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will issue a scale of pensions of officers, men, and dependants who are eligible for commutation, providing all circumstances justifying commutation warrant such a course being taken; and, if such scale or regulations do not exist, will he give instructions that such shall be issued immediately?

Major TRYON: Officers in receipt of permanent retired pay or wound pensions are in certain circumstances allowed to commute. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the printed statement explaining the rules drawn up for this purpose under the Pensions Commutation Act. As regards other ranks, regulations under Section 7 of the War Pensions Act, 192], have been prepared and will shortly be issued. The pension awarded to a widow or a dependant, being not necessarily a life pension, can in no circumstances be commuted.

Mr. WHITE: 37.
also asked the Minister of Pensions whether pensions can be commuted which are less than 2s. a day; whether he is aware that many partially-disabled men receiving less than 2s. a day are desirous of commuting their pensions with a view to purchasing a house or a business; and whether, if the Regulations do not now allow this to be done, he will make such alteration as is necessary to meet this type of case?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 15th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Cathcart, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the inadequacy of such pensions from the point of view of enabling one to live, would it not be desirable to commute these pensions in order to enable the men to go into whatever business they desire?

Major TRYON: Commutation is only granted in exceptional cases. It is greatly in the interests of the pensioner himself that he should not commute.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's Department turned down applications from ex-service men who want to go overseas, where they have homes and opportunities?

Major TRYON: I have to consider cases of that sort, and that is the kind of case where we do favourably consider commutation.

Mr. SHINWELL: In regard to final awards, is it not desirable in cases where there is no possibility of increasing the pension to commute where it is desired by the ex-service man?

Major TRYON: I do not think anybody would seriously contend that a pension of 10s. a week should be increased to over 14s. a week in order to enable a man to, commute.

MEN IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: 39.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of men in receipt of pensions in each region; what is the number of men on home treatment in each region; and what is the number of men on home treatment with treatment allowances in each region?

Major TRYON: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving the information desired as far as it is available.

Following is the statement:


—
Number of Pensions and Final Weekly Allowances in Payment.
Number of Men under Home Treatment with Allowances.


Scotland
61,000
469


Northern
48,000
186


North-Western
95,000
1,570


Yorkshire
69,000
335


Wales
39,000
335


West Midlands
51,000
384


East Midlands
49,000
460


South-Western
38,000
609


London
210,000
2,456


Ulster
16,000
146


South Ireland
31,000
265


Totals
707,000
7,215

FUNERALS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 41.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in the 12 months ending 31st December, 1922, where application was made by the relatives of a deceased pensioner dying in an institution for travelling expenses to attend the funeral in the district where the institution was situate; what was the
total sum involved; and what would have been the charge on the Ministry's funds had the bodies of the deceased been conveyed to their homes?

Major TRYON: No separate record is kept of cases of this nature.

Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply as much information as he can get, and will he reconsider his decision not to make these payments retrospective?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Seeing that the large number of questions put to him indicate many grievances against his Department, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived for him to change his attitude towards claims for pensions?

Major TRYON: I should say that the references to them in certain newspapers rather suggest organisation.

ADVANCES.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Order of the Ministry prohibiting local pensions officers from making advances to pensioners when payment by the Post Office is impossible owing to the non-arrival of draft-books was submitted to and considered by the central advisory committee, and, if so, on what date: whether the opinion of the regional advisory councils or war pensions committee was sought before this change in procedure was brought into effect; and, if so, what was the nature of their replies?

Major TRYON: The reply to the first three parts of the question is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 19th instant to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the retiring age for civil servants is 60: whether it is the practice when making appointments in the Ministry of Pensions to ignore any evidence that an officer about to be or who is appointed has completed a period of service in another
Department, and is receiving a pension adequate to live on; and whether he will in future give preference to men in receipt of pensions awarded in respect of disabilities due to war service, as in the majority of cases disability pensions are insufficient to maintain the average standard of living?

Major TRYON: Under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, the compulsory age of retirement of permanent civil servants is 65, but provision is made for an extension of this limit in special cases. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but the object is to secure the person best fitted for the work. Preference is already given to disabled men, and I may point out that, of the total male staff of the Ministry, 97.9 per cent. are ex-service men, and that of these 43.3 per cent. were disabled as a result of war service.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that a number of the more highly-paid officials in the right hon. Gentleman's Department are in receipt of very large pensions, and is not that in defiance of the Civil Service regulations—not as to when they shall retire, but as to whether they shall have employment while in receipt of a pension?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the case that the pensions of civil servants are in the nature of deferred salary, and are entirely their property, and that to take them into account in connection with future payments is practically to deprive them of their property?

Major TRYON: That is so, but I may say that the contention of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would gravely disable ex-service men of all ranks from finding employment in the public service, because his suggestion is that we ought to take into account a soldier's pension when we are considering whom we are to employ.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that, in putting these questions to the right hon. Gentleman, what has been asked has always been whether a man in receipt of an adequate pension should also draw a salary while men in receipt of no pension cannot get any work The Minister is entirely misrepresenting what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am not going to allow him to do that.

Mr. CAIRNS: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether under his supervision one of the principal assistant secretaries, late director of establishments, is responsible for staff appointments, the financial assistant secretary responsible for finance, the director-general of medical services for medical services, the director-general of awards for awards, the inspector-general for local administration, and the controller for the Pension Issue Office; whether it is necessary to have other officers in the secretariats for the general supervision and control of the Ministry machine; and whether, in view of the duplication of responsibility, supervision, and work, he will consider the early abolition of the secretariat, seeing that he could by this abolition effect an economy of not less than £20,000 a year?

Major TRYON: I am satisfied that the result of the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion would be the reverse of economy. The secretariat, which was introduced in its present form in 1919, has shown itself to be a distinct improvement on the earlier organisation, on lines similar to those which the hon. Member apparently now contemplates, and its officials are more than fully employed on duties which are essential to proper administration. The Departmental Committee of 1921, on which all sides of this House were represented, were satisfied of the necessity for the secretariat.

Mr. F. HALL: 23.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the figure of approximately 11,000, recently given as the highest reached for the employment of temporary women clerks in his Department, includes those employed prior to October, 1920, or at a later date on the staff of institutions and hospitals under the control of the Ministry; and, if not, what was the highest figure reached for the employment of temporary women clerks in offices attached to these?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. No exact figures were available in respect of women clerks employed in hospitals and institutions till December, 1919, when the number was 41. The highest figure reached was 118 in October, 1920.

Mr. HAYDAY: 27.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the average length of service in the Department of men and
women temporary officials above grade I, respectively; and what arrangements will be made on their dismissal for the recognition of their service when this has exceeded five years?

Major TRYON: The average length of service of men temporary officials is about three years, and of women temporary officials about five years. These officers hold their appointments on the clear understanding that they have no claim to permanent appointments, to compensation under the Superannuation Acts for loss of office, or to pension, and I regret that they are ineligible for a gratuity on discharge.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army Pay Corps receive £8 gratuity after two years' service, even the lowest grade, and could not he extend a similar arrangement to-those mentioned in the question?

Major TRYON: That is a matter which clearly concerns the Treasury.

Mr. SHORT: 30.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the average length of service of temporary women clerks above Grade 3 employed in October, 1920?

Major TRYON: I am afraid it is impracticable to undertake the detailed inquiry necessary to furnish an exact answer to the question. It may be assumed, however, that the average length of service was about two years.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, exclusive of the area offices, there is a reduction of 1,991 temporary clerks in the staff of the Ministry since 1st April, 1922; if so, would he state the number of ex-service women and the number of ex-service men included in the 1,991 temporary clerks no longer in the employ of the Ministry; and what is the number of ex-service men, at one time employed by local War Pensions Committees and whose wages were paid by the Ministry, who have been discharged since 1st January, 1922?

Major TRYON: The net reduction since the 1st April, 1922, in the temporary staff employed on work of a clerical or kindred nature is 1,720, exclusive of area offices. This number includes 656 ex-service men and 70 ex-service women, most of whom have resigned or have been appointed to
permanent posts. No particulars are available which will enable me to answer the latter part of the question.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his Department is making every effort to retain the woman clerk who has others dependent upon her or, where that is impracticable, to obtain for her remunerative employment elsewhere?

Major TRYON: Subject to the principle that the efficiency of the office must be the first consideration, women with dependants will be retained in my Department in preference to those who have only themselves to support. I have, however, no power to secure employment for them elsewhere when their services are no longer required.

TEMPORARY STAFFS (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House whether the special Committee set up to report on the initial salary as permanent civil servants of extemporary clerks appointed to permanent posts will cover all ex-temporary clerks appointed to the clerical and writing assistant classes since the end of the War?

Mr. PRINGLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Resolution of the hon. Member for East Fife in regard to initial salary was not restricted to ex-temporary civil servants, who were technically Lytton entrants, but covered all ex-temporary clerks appointed to established classes since the end of the War, he can state on what grounds the terms of reference to the special Committee on this matter are confined to persons covered by paragraph 43 of the Lytton Report; and whether he can assure the House that the terms of reference will be so amended as to enable the Committee to cover other categories of ex-temporaries appointed to established classes since the end of the War?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the limitations of the reference of the Lytton Committee of inquiry, he will extend the scope of the inquiry so that this body will be aide to deal effectively with all claims which it may think to be unfounded?

Mr. HOGGE: 101.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the case of ex-temporary clerks appointed to writing assistant posts in the Civil Service will be considered by the special Committee recently set up to deal with the matters arising out of the Lytton Report?

Mr. HAYES: 105.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be competent for the Committee set up to inquire into the initial rates of pay of ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service to deal with the initial salaries of those extemporary clerks appointed to the writing assistant class?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): As I explained on Thursday last, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the terms of reference to the Committee will cover not only those who are technically Lytton entrants, but also all entrants, men and women, ex-service and non-service, to the clerical and departmental clerical classes from the special competitions limited to temporary staffs.
The reference thus covers all classes which could fairly be brought within the definition of Lytton entrant, and I do not think it would be right to complicate the issue by bringing before a committee set up to examine the effect of the Lytton Committee's Report the claims of writing assistants or of any other class of civil servant for an improvement in their rates of pay.
I would add, with special reference to the writing assistant class, that no ex-service men have been appointed to that class and that the claim for an improvement of the rates of pay of writing assistants was raised quite independently of the claim of Lytton entrants and has not been regarded even by the staff elements as having any integral connection with the latter claim. In fact, the matter has recently been raised separately on the Civil Service National Whitley Council and is now under consideration by that body, the proposal being to set up a special committee of the Council to examine the whole question of the conditions of service of the writing assistant class.
In these circumstances I feel sure that hon. Members will not desire to set aside the existing machinery while in operation, a fact of which the House was not aware during the recent Debates.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in moving my Resolution I included the figure of 9,000 cases, which I gave, and which I asked to be dealt with?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is perfectly correct, but I have studied with great care every speech made in the debate, which I was unfortunately prevented from attending. While what the hon. Member says is quite true, the speeches made by the hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton), Dartford (Mr. Jarrett), Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), and South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) dealt entirely with the case of the ex-service men and Lytton entrants. Having regard to the latter part of my reply, I feel that I have done my utmost to meet what I believe to be the general desire of the House in stating the terms of reference.

Mr. JARRETT: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce the names of the Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope to be able to do so at the beginning of next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MENTAL CASES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the following cases of disabled men transferred by his Department to the charge of the Poplar Board of Guardians, thus causing them to become paupers, namely: Arthur J. Robinson, age, 38, previously in the Navy 12 years, served in R. S. during the War, and 22nd July, 1918, admitted to Long Grove mental hospital from Napsbury war hospital; Joseph O'Gorman, age 42, enlisted 19th January, 1916, and 20th June, 1917, admitted to Claybury mental hospital from Napsbury war hospital; James McGeehan, age 47, no record of enlistment, 29th March, 1916, admitted to male observation ward, military hospital, Bethnal Green, 8th April, 1916,
admitted to Claybury, and 19th June, 1918, transferred to service class; John Tighe, age 27, enlisted 23rd February, 1917, to Army Reserve, 12th May, 1917, 10th September, 1917, admitted to male observation ward, Poplar, 15th September, 1917, to Claybury, and 3rd April, 1918, transferred to service class; and Henry Damyon, Royal Engineers 12 years from 1896, in Canada for 11 or 12 years, enlisted in Royal Army Medical Corps, May, 1917, admitted to mental hospital in Scotland while still in Army, never sent, abroad, and at present resident in Brentwood mental hospital; whether he is aware of the fact that the Poplar guardians have refused to accept responsibility for these men, and have declined to pay anything towards the cost of their maintenance, or in any way to assist in branding these ex-service men as paupers; and will he, in consequence of this decision and others of a like character, reconsider his decision?

Major TRYON: These five cases have all been very carefully reconsidered recently by my medical advisers in connection with the special review, of which the hon. Member is aware. The result has been that the former decisions that the disability is unconnected with service have been confirmed in the cases of Robinson, McGeehan, Tighe and Damyon. In the remaining case of O'Gorman, it has been found possible to admit aggravation by service, and in that case my Department will, therefore, continue to bear the cost of the man's maintenance and institutional treatment. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared, as I have already stated, to accept the suggestion that my Department should be permanently responsible for ex-service men whose disabilities are not connected with their war service.

Mr. LANSBURY: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do when the boards of guardians up and down the country refuse to assist him in branding these men as paupers?

Mr. BATEY: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Private Thomas Hesaltine, No. 6/1496, Durham Light Infantry, joined the Territorial Force in 1912, served 203 days in France, being discharged in April, 1920; that on 30th April, 1922, he was admitted into the Durham County Lunatic Asylum and
has since been classed as a pauper lunatic at a cost to the Poor Law of 280; and will steps be taken to treat this case otherwise than as that of a pauper?

Major TRYON: This man did no effective military service after July, 1916, when he was transferred to Class W Reserve. The mental condition appears not to have arisen until four years later, and, after full consideration, could not be connected with service. The decision of the Ministry rejecting the claim to pension has been confirmed by the tribunal, and is, therefore, final.

Mr. BATEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this man's service in France would not have any effect on his mental condition, and is not the action of the Ministry simply throwing the expense upon the Poor Law guardians?

TUBERCULAR CASES (VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many village settlements there are for tubercular ex-service men; how many men are located in them; whether the village settlements at Pap-worth Hall and Barrowmore are to be completed; and, if so, how many men will then be accommodated and how many are in them now?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY (for the Minister of Health): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, two village settlements have been started in this country for tuber-culous men and their families, but one of these settlements is not reserved exclusively for ex-service men. Accommodation is provided for over 100 men and their families, but my right hon. Friend has no precise information as to the number of men at present residing in the settlements. He is not aware that a village settlement has yet been started at Barrowmore, and has no definite information as to any proposals for the completion of the settlement at Papworth Hall. As my right hon. Friend stated, in his reply on the 18th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Reading (Major Cadogan), he proposes to discuss the question of village settlements for tuberculous men with representatives of the British Legion at an early date.

DEAFNESS CASES (TRAINING).

Captain BERKELEY: 38.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the serious difficulties of ex-service men deafened by the War; whether he is aware that this disability imposes a handicap upon a man seeking employment fully as great as that suffered by a man who has lost his sight; and whether he can see his way to make a special effort on behalf of these men, similar to that already made on behalf of blinded soldiers, both with regard to training for, and the obtaining of, employment?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to admit that the rate of 70 per cent. given under the Royal Warrant for total deafness compares unfavourably with the 100 per cent. rate given far total blindness. The general question of training and employment for ex-service men is one for my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, but I understand that men who were prevented by deafness due to war service from resuming their pre-War occupation, and who applied to that Department, have been trained in some other suitable form of occupation.

Captain BERKELEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way in the case of unlettered men who find it difficult to learn that the number of lessons should be extended from 24?

Major TRYON: Without making any promise, I will consider that question.

AIR MINISTRY.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what proportion of the ex-service temporary civil servants employed in his Department on clerical duties are home service and overseas, respectively; and how many are men who did not sit for the recent special establishment examinations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): Of the ex-service temporary civil servants employed in the Air Ministry on clerical duties, 13 are "home service" and 152 are "overseas." Forty-three of this total of 165 are men who did not sit for the recent special examinations for establishment.

Mr. CAIRNS: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements, if any,
were made for the absorption into civilian clerical employment in his Department of men demobilised from His Majesty's Forces, clerical home service units, from 1918 to October, 1920?

Sir S. HOARE: No special steps were taken to absorb into civilian clerical employment demobilised men who had been employed on clerical work in home service units, but a number of such men were in fact taken on in a civil capacity.

Sir R. NEWMAN: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether men who served during the War in the fighting forces of the Crown are being rejected for clerical work under the Air Ministry on account of their being below a certain standard of height?

Sir S. HOARE: If my hon. Friend's question refers to civilian clerical work under the Air Ministry, the answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMANY (DISARMAMENT).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has made any agreement with its Allies concerning the suppression of the organisation of German police in military groups, and other matters relative thereto?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

Captain BENN: Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House the other day that we were satisfied that the Germans were carrying out the disarmament Clauses of the Treaty?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Council of Ambassadors in Paris is in communication with Germany on the subject. As to the details, I am afraid that I cannot answer.

Captain BENN: What is the need of putting new demands upon Germany if the Government are satisfied that the terms are being carried out?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I see no reason for thinking that there are new demands. Certain facts have probably come to light, and no doubt the attention
of the German Government has been drawn to these facts, but the matter is in the hands of the Ambassadors' Council. I have not got the information.

Captain BENN: Does the answer that the terms were being carried out still stand?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Apparently in detail complaints have been put forward.

Captain BERKELEY: What steps are proposed by the Government to give effect to this agreement?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: They are negotiating through the Council of Ambassadors. I naturally cannot say what steps will be necessary as a result of these negotiations.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the total amounts of reparations that have been received by this country from Germany in cash and in goods since the end of the War, excluding the amounts paid in respect of the cost of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine; and what is the approximate amount received annually by this country from the export duties payable in respect of German goods shipped to this country?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. and gallant Friend may take it that receipts from Germany to 31st December last were, roughly, 1,150 million gold marks, of which about nine-tenths were required for reimbursement of coal advances under the Spa Protocol, costs of occupation and similar charges. In addition, paper marks equal in value to 105 million gold marks were requisitioned, all for the costs of occupation. The pound sterling is now worth 19½ gold marks, but its value has fluctuated during the period over which the payments were spread. For further details I must ask him to await publication of a volume which the Reparation Commission propose to issue through the Stationery Office, and which I understand to be in an advanced stage of preparation. As regards the second part of the question, the receipts under the Reparation Recovery Act last year were £7,476,000.

Mr. WISE: 86 and 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Repartition
Commission approved of the 50,000,000 dollars German Government loan; and what is the security for this loan;
(2) if the reported subscription of 12,500,000 dollars of the German Government's loan of 50,000,000 dollars will be handed over to the Reparation Commission; and, if the issue was underwritten, if the balance of the amount left with the underwriters will be credited to the Reparation Commission?

Mr. BALDWIN: A communication was made by the Reparation Commission on the 28th March in the following terms:
With reference to the extraordinary receipts which are being attained by the German Government from the recent issue of a gold loan, the Reparation Commission calls the attention of that Government to the provisions of Article 248 of the Treaty of Versailles. The fact that the German Government has not thought it proper to ask for an exception under that Article makes it necessary for the Commission to make an express reserve as against subscribers to the loan no less than other parties, of its right of priority against any funds which may be assigned by the German Government to the payment of interest or repayment of capital of the loan in question, more particularly if the extraordinary receipt itself is not applied to the discharge of reparation annuities.

Mr. WISE: What is the value of the security?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. WISE: The right hon. Gentleman will notice that in Question No. 86 I ask what is the security.

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I will communicate with him later on that point.

Mr. WISE: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Reparation Commission has a lien on all the German Government's revenue for payment of reparations?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the first paragraph of Article 248 of the Treaty of Versailles.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

CHRISTIANS (TREATMENT).

Lieut.- Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view
of the indignation in this country at the persecution of the Christian religion in Russia and in view of the character of the replies of the Soviet Government to the remonstrances of His Majesty's Government, he will, as a national protest, recall Mr. Hodgson from Moscow and hand M. Krassin and his staff their passports?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before this question is answered, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department acquiesces in the description of "persecution of the Christian religion"?

Mr. BALDWIN: I can add nothing to the reply given yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Would not a protest of that kind have more effect than a verbal remonstrance?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked the Prime Minister a question. Will he answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: It did not seem to be relevant.

TRADE DELEGATION.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state what British subjects are attached to the Russian trade delegation; and what their employment was before their engagement by the Russian trade delegation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): My right hon. Friend is not in a position to add anything to the answer given on Monday to the hon. and gallant Member by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Mr. MOREL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs two inter-related questions of which I have given him private notice. First, whether there is any international law in force limiting territoral waters to a three-mile limit; whether other nations have reserved more than a three-mile limit in regard to fishing rights;
whether the Tsarist Government of Russia reserved a 12-mile zone off the Northern Coast of Russia for fishing rights; whether on 22nd March, 1911, the then British Foreign Minister had a conversation with Count Beckendorff on the subject; whether, on any occasion, the Russian Government suggested that the matter should be discussed at The Hague Conference; whether Sir Edward Grey informed Sir George Buchanan—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member received a communication from me this morning in regard to this question, which I thought was too detailed, considering the time for research allowed by the notice that has been given.

Mr. MOREL: No, Sir. I received no communication.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I understood that a communication had been sent to the hon. Member, stating that the second question appeared to be within the proper limits of a private notice question, but that the first question was with regard to matters of such detail that it should be put down on the Paper.

Mr. MOREL: I received no such notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his second question?

Mr. MOREL: My second question is, whether a dispute between the Russian and Norwegian Governments, respecting the width of territorial waters off the coast of North Russia, was recently settled amicably by negotiation; if inquiries have been made as to the willingness of the Russian Government to negotiate with His Majesty's Government on the dispute and whether, on their part, His Majesty's Government are equally prepared to enter into negotiations with the Russian Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I had intended to answer those two questions together, not knowing that Mr. Speaker had disallowed one of them. I was going to say that I very much regretted not being in a position to answer them to-day, because the time at my disposal since the hon. Member gave me notice had not been sufficient to enable me to make the necessary investigation.
I, therefore, must ask the hon. Member to accept my apologies. If he will be good enough to put the questions on the Paper for Monday, I will endeavour to give him a full answer.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. What is the ground of urgency upon which the second question has been put, in view of the fact that I desired on Monday last to ask a similar question by private notice, and it was disallowed by you, Sir?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a further point of Order. May I point out that hon. Members in this part of the House have been asking questions on that subject for weeks past, and may I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if, when he reviews the whole position with regard to the Territorial Waters Act, he will consider once again the question of trawling?

Mr. SPEAKER: In answer to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), the reason why I considered this question was entitled to be put to-day was the announcement made yesterday by the Minister, in reply to the Noble Lord that he was intending to send—I think he used the word "immediately" or the words "without delay"—a despatch to the Government of Russia, and it appears to me that this question had relation to what might be contained in that despatch, and for that reason was urgent.

Mr. STURROCK: May I ask whether this question has any possible relation to the interests of the workers of Dundee who returned the hon. Member?

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the campaign on the subject of the trawlers is widely regarded as merely designed to prepare the public mind for the denunciation of our Agreement with Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE DISPUTES ACT.

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the action recently taken by the National Union of Foundry Workers, he intends to consider legislation with a view to repealing the Trade Disputes Act?

Mr. GERALD HURST: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Coleridge, delivered on the 23rd April, in the action Blackall v. the National Union of Foundry Workers; whether he is aware that the majority of trade unionists resent the abuse by the union in question of the powers vested in it, and that such abuses are common among trade unions; and whether he will consider the desirability of repealing the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, and of otherwise amending the present law relating to trade unions?

Mr. BALDWIN: My attention has been drawn to the judgment referred to, the implications of which will receive consideration.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the colossal ignorance of the hon. Member who put the question is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That expression is not in accordance with the hon. Member's own usual courtesy.

Mr. SEXTON: I submit to your ruling, but I understood that it is quite a Parliamentary expression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] If my expression is un-Parliamentary, I unreservedly withdraw it. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this union is not responsible in any way as a governing body for this action of a branch, and that this action was taken against the directions and wish of the executive body of the union?

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country against that Section of the Act which legalises interference with men in their right to work?

Mr. SEXTON: I know nothing whatever about it.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of the legal profession has also been dealt with in exactly similar circumstances in this manner by his union?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR.

Mr. BARNES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is unable to consider a reduction of the duties on sugar because, in his opinion, the benefit of any such reduction would not find its way to the consumer, he will appoint a Select Committee of this House to inquire into and report upon the cause of the present high Price of sugar and upon the reasons for the failure of British Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, in which large sums of State funds are invested, to develop on practical lines the production of sugar in this country?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that the difficulties which British Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, had to face were due in the main to the fact that the industry (which is one that requires, in an exceptional degree, highly-skilled technical management) was in its infancy in this country. There is every reason to hope that the reconstruction of the company, which has recently been effected, and the steps which are now being taken to improve the plant at the Kelham sugar beet factory will result in the establishment of the industry on a firm foundation. I do not think, therefore, that the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member would serve any useful purpose.

Captain BERKELEY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day that the ring in America prevented him reducing the duty on sugar, will the Government consider the possibility of taking steps to increase Empire production?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are going to debate that in the House later on.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH CERTIFICATION.

Mr. WARNE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Departmental Committee on Coroners' Law reported in 1909 that the present law of death certification offers every opportunity for premature burial and every facility for the concealment of crime, and that a great deal of the law relating to coroners dates from the thirteenth century and is not well suited to the changed conditions of modern life; and, in the presence of these statements and the fact that laws relating to coroners are comprised in
about 30 Acts of Parliament, what steps is he taking to codify the law on this important subject?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to Coroners is in course of preparation, but my right hon. Friend cannot say when it will be possible to introduce it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DENTISTS ACT, 1921 (PROSECUTIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 55.
asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions that have been undertaken under the Dentists Act, 1921; and how many of those prosecuted would have been permitted to continue practising but for their being under the age limit set up by this Act?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The number of prosecutions undertaken has been four, and one of these comes within the last paragraph of the question.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling of resentment through the country as to the position in which ox-service men have been placed because of their age, and if a Bill is brought in to legalise their position will it receive Government support?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid that I cannot answer that. That is a question for the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS TRAFFIC, LONDON.

Captain BRASS: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the dangerous practice which exists in London during the busy hours of the evening of large numbers of would-be passengers all attempting to board motor omnibuses at the same time; and whether he can see his way to having the Paris system adopted, whereby intending passengers on arrival tear off small numbered tickets which are attached to the motor omnibus company's pavement standards and are then allowed to board the motor omnibuses in rotation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The conditions under which omnibuses operate in
London are dissimilar from those in Paris, and my right hon. Friend is advised that any system such as is described would not be practicable.

Captain BRASS: Will my bon. Friend give an assurance that some experiments will be made as to the system which is so useful in Paris?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the bus system in Paris is quite different owing to the fact that the bus routes overlap much less there than here and that the system would not be applicable to London.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that over 220 Members of this House, belonging to all parties, have declared themselves in favour of the abolition by law of night baking; and whether, in view of that fact, he will reconsider his decision and introduce legislation on this subject at an early date?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has no doubt that a Bill to abolish night baking would command a large measure of support, but he is also satisfied that it could not at present be passed without serious controversy. He regrets, therefore, he does not see his way to advise the Government to undertake legislation for the purpose this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (DEPORTEES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that no doctor visited Mr. McGlyn while he was in Mountjoy prison and that the question of his health was never raised that Mr. McGlyn signed the undertaking not to take part in activities against the Free State Government for the reason that he has always been a supporter of it; and whether he will now state on what grounds Mr. McGlyn was arrested?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend can only say that the Free State Government, in recommending McGlyn's release, stated that he was in very bad health. My right hon. Friend
has no information in regard to the second part. The answer to the third part is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MURDER CHARGE, NEWPORT.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 60.
asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to release Willie Morgan, of Newport, Mon., from prison, seeing that the charge against him was dismissed by the magistrates; whether he is aware that, under existing circumstances, a prisoner might have to remain in prison for nearly three months awaiting trial if he is committed on a coroner's warrant and dismissed by the magistrates; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to prevent coroners committing prisoners for trial?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A nolle prosequi has been entered in this case and the prisoner has been released. This procedure appears to my right hon. Friend to meet such a case very fairly, and he sees no urgent need for an amendment of the law.

Mr. JONES: Is the hon. Member not aware that this young man has been charged with the murder of his own mother, that the charge was dismissed by the magistrate, and that he is now in a state of suspense as to whether or not he has to come up for trial at the Assizes, and will the hon. Gentleman take instant steps to relieve this man from this agonising apprehension?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The question on the Paper is as to this man's release. He has been released.

Mr. JONES: On bail. He is still liable to come up.

Oral Answers to Questions — JERSEY (LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S VISIT TO GUERNSEY)

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 61.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey is paying an official visit to the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey, and is taking his staff with him; who pays the expenses of this visit, and where does the necessity or advantage of such visit arise?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend is aware of the proposed visit, which follows a similar visit to Jersey by the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey some 18 months ago. He considers that such visits desirable as helping to co-ordinate the interests of the islands. No expense to the British Exchequer is involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING).

Mr. HAYES: 62.
asked the Home Secretary the number of adult prisoners and young prisoners, respectively, who are employed on the making and repairing of mail bags and the number of prisons where male prisoners are employed almost exclusively on this form of work without any opportunity of obtaining any industrial training; and whether he will issue instructions that some form of industrial training must be provided in every prison?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The latest available returns show that 2,759 male adult and 132 male young prisoners were employed on the making and repairing of mail bags. Mail bag making is not carried out in Borstal institutions, nor by females. There are nine small prisons where the male prisoners are employed mainly on mail bags. The Prison Commissioners are making every effort to obtain other work for prisoners, and, with that object, all Government Departments have been requested by the Treasury to place orders whenever possible with the Prison Commissioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS PROSECUTION.

Captain FOXCROFT: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether F. J. McCarthy, arrested and fined on Saturday, the 4th instant, for being in possession of a revolver, is in the Civil Service, and, if so, in what branch; whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any disciplinary action in the matter; and how many civil servants have been arrested for similar offences?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): The man in question is an established clerical officer in the Department of Customs and Excise. His offence appears to have been dealt with by a Court of
Law. The question whether any Departmental action is required is under consideration. I am not aware of other similar cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (MENTAL CASES).

Mr. MIDDLETON: 64.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the general dissatisfaction on the part of experts regarding the existing arrangements for persons remanded to prisons for mental observation and report, where they are detained as a rule in gated cells and subjected to the idle scrutiny of all prisoners and others passing the cells; and whether arrangements may be made for the use of the prison hospital for this purpose when it is not in use for sick persons or, alternatively, that some further experiments should be tried on the lines of the Birmingham scheme?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Persons who are sent to prison for observation as to their mental state are usually put into the prison hospital, when the accommodation allows, but, if not, they are placed in cells provided for this purpose and are supervised by the hospital officers. These cells are gated, and it is found by experience that they are the most suitable. They are located in special parts of the prison where there are very few passers by. The extension of the Birmingham scheme, as regards segregation and observation, to other prisons, would involve structural alterations and the expenditure of large sums of money.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICAB FARES.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the decreased prices of petrol and motor tyres, he can see his way to reduce the charges of taxicab fares?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This question has been considered from time to time, but my right hon. Friend cannot at present, having regard to all the circumstances, recommend any reduction of fares.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that many owner-drivers wish very much to have a reduction in fares?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that, if this suggestion were carried out, it would throw many owner-drivers out of business altogether.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Why, then, should they wish to have a reduction of fares?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know.

Captain BERKELEY: Can nothing be done to reduce the scale of charges for unserviceable taxicabs?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Gentleman compare the scale of taxicab fares in Paris with those in London?

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we would get lower taxicab fares if it were not for the 33⅓ per cent. duty on foreign cars?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONERS AND PAY.

Mr. PETO: 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether the scale of pensions of officers in the police force who retired before the date in 1918, when the new scale of pensions came into force, will now be considered with a view to a more generous scale being adopted?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 23rd April, it has been decided to introduce legislation to improve the scale of pension increases under the Pensions Increase Act, 1920. My right hon. Friend cannot make any further statement at present as to police pensioners in particular.

Mr. PETO: When is it likely that this legislation will be initiated? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any promise of the improvement, of these pensions in the present Session?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Questions as to legislation ought to be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. R. YOUNG: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pensions tinder the Act quoted are not being paid, and are cut down by 50 per cent. in some parts of the country?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is another question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it on the Paper.

Mr. HAYES: 67.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to appoint a Committee to inquire into the present standard of remuneration of the police service; if so, can he give particulars of the members of the Committee and their terms of reference; and whether the rank and file of the police service will be allowed to give evidence?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No decision to appoint such a Committee has been arrived at. If any such inquiry should be initiated, it would clearly be necessary to afford representatives of all ranks full opportunity for submitting evidence.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the unsettled state of mind of many men in the Service, will the hon. Gentleman consider the reappointment of the Desborough Committee, which had the confidence of members of the force and of this House, so that it might consider questions of importance to the Service?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will certainly put that suggestion before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. F. GRAY: Can we have an assurance that there will be no reduction of police pay until this House has had an opportunity of considering the matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That does not arise out of the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

GRANTS (SHEFFIELD).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 68 and 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is now fully informed as to the reductions proposed by the Sheffield local education authority; whether he has taken these proposals into consideration; whether the restriction of facilities necessitated by the reductions will result in the failure to reach the standard of efficiency required under The Education Act, 1918; if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter;
(2) what is the estimated reduction in the Board of Education's grant to the
Sheffield local education authority for the financial year 1923–24, arising from the proposals of the authority for reduced expenditure?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The Authority have now submitted revised proposals to the Board which, I am glad to say, provide for the continuance of domestic and manual instruction to which reference has been made in earlier questions, and in that respect the efficiency of the schools will not be affected. The method of the calculation of grant to local education authorities in respect of elementary education is described in the notes to Subhead C.1 of the Board's Estimates. I am not at present able to state the amount which will be payable to Sheffield in respect of the financial year 1923–24.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the Noble Lord not aware that the authority mentioned has made a rough estimate of what it will lose, and is he not able to give an official estimate?

Lord E. PERCY: No, certainly not.

WOMEN TEACHERS (ENLARGED CLASSES).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education what medical evidence has been considered as to the effect of the enlarged classes upon the health of women teachers, and what protection these teachers have where the classrooms, by reason of difficulties of structure, ventilation, or light, are not suitable for such enlarged classes and yet possess the official cubic air space; and will he agree to a medical nominee from the women teachers' associations conferring with his medical advisers thereon?

Lord PERCY: No medical evidence of the nature mentioned has been laid before me, and I know of no reason to suppose that the health of women teachers has been affected by any increase in the size of classes up to the limits of the recognised accommodation which has taken place.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Is the Noble Lord aware that in the teaching profession the difficulties of the work, by reason of these handicaps, are greater than in any other profession?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member has any case to put before me, I shall be glad to look into it.

NECESSITOUS CHILDREN.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that necessitous school children, many of them born of neurotic and otherwise disabled soldiers since 1915, will receive such special food and care, in view of the amount set aside in the Education Estimates for such purpose and that a smaller amount per child is shown than was used before the War, when no such special necessity existed?

Lord E. PERCY: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The amount taken for the provision of meals in the Board's Estimates for 1922–23 and 1923 24 enables the Board to pay grant on an expenditure by local education authorities for this purpose largely in excess of their expenditure in any, year before the War.

Sir W. SUGDEN: If I bring cases to the notice of the Noble Lord, will he look into them?

Lord E. PERCY: Certainly.

WORKS CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consult with trade unions and employers' federations as to the future of works continuation schools of certain industrial firms and companies where the trade and business has been, during the last two years, unprofitable and now such schools are in danger of being closed; and whether he will suggest to the Treasury certain Income Tax rebates to the firms in the event of such schools continuing and the business being either unprofitable or only slightly remunerative?

Lord E. PERCY: I shall always be ready to consider any representations that may be made to me, but I may remind my hon. Friend that most of the continuation schools conducted under arrangements with particular firms are wholly or partly maintained by local education authorities. I appreciate the value of the work done in them, but I am not sure I understand the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Cannot the noble Lord make arrangements with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that where industrial firms, although working at a loss, are yet public-spiritedly helping on this adult education work, some consideration shall be given to them in respect of national taxation?

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will confer with me as to the precise nature of the relaxation desired.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the Tottenham Urban District Council has agreed to accept the valuation of the district valuer, he will now give his consent to the construction of an elementary school for the proposed Devonshire Hill site in Tottenham; and, having regard to the present overcrowded condition of Risley Avenue School and the number of families moving into this district every week, will he do everything possible to facilitate this work?

Lord E. PERCY: In the circumstances, the Board are now prepared to approve the site so far as educational considerations are concerned, and to consider building plans.

DOMESTIC TRAINING.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state approximately in what number of the public elementary schools instruction in domestic subjects, including cookery, is given to the older girls?

Lord E. PERCY: The number of public elementary schools in England and Wales in which instruction was given in domestic subjects in the year 1921–22 (the latest year for which I have full figures) was 10,576.

FRANCE AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA (AIR CONVENTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet seen the text of the recently concluded aviation convention between France and Czechoslovakia; and can he state what steps are being taken to preserve rights on this market to the British aeroplane manufacturers?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I have not seen the text of the agreement. I understand that it has not yet been ratified. In the meanwhile, I am in communication with Prague as to whether any steps will be necessary to safeguard British interests. I cannot give an answer until I know in detail the terms of the agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

WORKS, EGYPT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, with regard to the stone buildings which were erected in Egypt as Royal Air Force squadron stations, and were equipped with machinery for repair work, he will say to what use these buildings and machinery are now being put?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot identify the stone buildings to which the hon. and gallant Member refers as having been erected for the Royal Air Force, and I should be glad if he would give some further particulars. I would add that the engine repair depot at Abbassia, which was originally the. Swiss Ironworks, and was purchased by the Royal Air Force, is still being used as a repairdepot.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state who ordered the construction of the hangar and shipway for seaplanes at the Royal Air Force depot in Aboukir Bay; what was the total cost of the hangar and shipway; and whether they are at present in use?

Sir S. HOARE: The construction referred to was ordered by the Air Ministry in 1920 in order to meet the need for a seaplane station, and was purposely kept down to the minimum expenditure in order that the suitability of Aboukir Bay for the purpose could be tested before any extensive programme of works was put in hand. The approximate expenditure was £1,560, exclusive of the cost of the temporary hangar, which was available. Subsequently considerations of policy led to the withdrawal of the seaplane flight, and the station is no longer in use.

AIR ATTACHÉS

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for Air why there are only two air attachés accredited to foreign Courts as compared to seven naval attachés and assistant attachés and 18 military attachés and assistant attachés; to which Courts they are accredited; and what duties they perform; and whether he has made or is making any effort to have the number of air attachés increased?

Sir S. HOARE: For reasons of economy representation by air attachés has been restricted to those countries whose aeronautical development is most advanced, namely, France and the United States of America. The question has, however, recently been reviewed and it is at present under consideration, but not yet finally decided, to appoint air attachés to two other countries where such representation is thought likely to be advantageous.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman pressed on the Government the need for a re-distribution in order to have, without any extra expense, more air attachés and fewer military attachés, in view of the development of aerial transport?

Sir S. HOARE: We have been considering the question recently as it affects the three services, and the latter part of my answer refers to the arrangement which we hope to bring into operation in the near future.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the lack of air attachés in South America, the Germans have been able to pretty well capture all the aviation facilities in the whole of that Continent?

Sir S. HOARE: I may tell the Noble Lord that it is with reference to South America we have been recently reviewing the whole question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many air attachés are detailed by France to other countries?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL RATES (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 91.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approxmate amount received in rural districts per head of their population from the national taxes in relief of local rates last year and the corresponding figure for urban districts, excluding in both cases any sums from the Unemployed Grants Committee or other payments in relief of temporary unemployment; and will he say what he estimates will be the sums so contributed this year after taking into account the additional £2,750,000 from the Treasury and the £1,250,000 to £1,500,000 from the Road Fund promised to rural districts by the Minister of Agriculture?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has been asked to reply to this question. A large part of the grants from national taxes in relief of local rates in England and Wales is paid to county councils and other authorities which act for areas comprising both rural districts and urban districts and do not keep separate accounts for the two classes of districts. My right hon. Friend regrets, therefore, that he is unable to give the particulars desired by the hon. Member.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the noble Lord undertake to get information on this point, in view of the fact that urban ratepayers are being badly treated by the Government, as they are getting no relief from taxation compared with rural ratepayers?

Lord E. PERCY: I shall be glad to discuss the question with the hon. Member some time, but I think he will see it is absolutely impossible to set up a system of statistics which would give the precise information he desires.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not the fact that the arrangement with regard to the rates in agricultural districts is meant to assist agriculture in its present state of depression and, if that can be done for agriculture, why not for other industries?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that raises a large question of policy which I cannot discuss now.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION.

Mr. HANNON: 92.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the ratio of revenue from indirect taxation to revenue from direct taxation in 1913 was approximately equal, and that the corresponding ratio of anticipated revenue during the current year is as 9 to 14; and whether it is his intention in future years, if practicable, to reduce direct taxation to a figure which will bear the same ratio to indirect taxation as in 1913?

Mr. BALDWIN: The figures for 1913–1914 and 1923–1924 are as follow:



Indirect Taxation.
Direct. Taxation.


1913–1914
42.5
57.5


1923–1924
36.47
63.53


The last figure includes Excess Profits Duty as a direct tax. I do not think I can say now what form tax reductions will take in the future.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relative increase in interest with direct taxation is greater than that of direct taxation with indirect taxation?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business he proposes to take next week?

Mr. BALDWIN: Monday: (1) Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill; Report and Third Reading. (2) Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Continuance) Bill; Second Reading. (3) Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill; Report and Third Reading. (4) Explosives Bill [H.L.]; Second Reading. (5) Housing, etc. (No. 2) Bill Money Resolution; Committee.
Tuesday: Supply (Navy Votes, 10, 13, 14, and 15). Housing Bill, etc. (No. 2) Money Resolution; Report.
Wednesday: Stages of Bills not taken on Monday, and, if time permits, Agricultural Holdings [Lords] Bill; Second Reading. Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) [Lords] Bill; Second Reading. Mines (Working Facilities and Support) [Lords] Bill; Second Reading. Criminal Justice Bill; Second Reading.
Thursday: Rent Restrictions (Notice of Increase) Bill; Report.

Mr. MacDONALD: Arising out of the announcement of the business for Tuesday, do the Government intend to take the Report stage of the Money Resolution on the Housing Bill after 11 at night?

Mr. BALDWIN: Those Report stages generally are taken after 11.

Captain BENN: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really propose, in view of the great interest of this Money Resolution, especially to Scottish Members, to take the Committee stage late one night, namely, on Monday, as it is the fifth Order on the Paper, and the Report stage after 11 the next night?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is very important, as the House will realise, to get this Resolution through, because, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, until it is through no progress can be made with the Bill, and, after all, the main discussion on everything connected with housing comes on the Bill really more than on the Resolution.

Mr. MacDONALD: Would it be possible for the Government to reconsider Monday's business, as it has been announced that the Money Resolution on the Housing Bill is the fifth Order? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that on Tuesday, after having set up Supply, he cannot, without being unable to count it as a Supply day, bring in this Resolution before 11 o'clock.

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite see the hon. Member's point. In regard to the progress of the Resolution, I think it would be a good thing, perhaps, if further consultation took place through the usual channels, but, of course, it is possible, as the hon. Member knows, by a Motion to be able to take the Report Stage of the Resolution on an allotted day.

Captain BENN: In any such communications, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advisability of consulting Scottish Members?

Mr. STURROCK: In view of the great importance of housing in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman place this Money Resolution on the Paper as first Order on Tuesday, in order that we may,
once and for all, have the chance of discussing the housing problem from the Scottish point of view?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that would be possible, and I do not think we shall get much further by discussing this question of the course of business across the Floor of the House.

Mr. PRINGLE: In relation to the Rent Restriction and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Continuance) Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister will be in a position to announce the proposals for the principal Bill on that topic, namely, the Bill which is to continue and amend the existing Act, before the Second Reading is taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather out of order now.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I point out that in the principal discussion on the Bill we did not get an adequate discussion of the financial provisions, and, unless we can amend the Money Resolution, we shall be prevented from moving any of our Amendments to extend the scope of the Bill.

Sir JOHN SIMON: It really is not the case that the finance of a Bill is discussed on Second Reading and, in this case, among other reasons, because at the time the Minister of Health opened the debate on Second Reading the White Paper had not been circulated.

Mr. BALDWIN: All those considerations shall be taken into account.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. HANNON: I want to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, which, I think, will be of interest to the House, particularly with regard to economy of Parliamentary time. I should like to call your attention to the fact that during the present Session an abnormally large number of questions have been put on the Paper dealing with purely personal and local subjects. I have taken the trouble to find out the number, and I find that during the present Session, up to the 23rd April, 4,345 separate questions have been put down, and of these no fewer than 620 have dealt entirely with what may be described as purely personal and local
questions. I have taken out the questions themselves for the six days from 11th April to 19th April, and I find that of the 813 questions which were asked during that period of time, 116 were entirely of a personal and local character. This is particularly the case with questions addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. I have had considerable experience of the Minister of Pensions since I came into the House, and no Minister is more courteous and more anxious to deal with cases by correspondence than he is, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that a great number of these questions could be dealt with through the Departments themselves, outside this House, without wasting Parliamentary time. I have no desire to suggest any restriction of the liberties and rights and privileges of Members of this House, but I think it would be a great convenience and saving of time if hon. Members would address their questions to Ministers at their Departments rather than putting them on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: The point of Order which I understood the hon. Member wished to put to me was the question of putting starred or unstarred questions. It has been suggested to me more than once that I should attempt to sort out the questions, and decide whether they should be starred or unstarred, but that is a task which I could not possibly undertake. I can only ask hon. Members, as far as possible, to have consideration for one another.
It must be left to the good sense of hon. Members, asking them, as far as they reasonably can, to observe the intention of the Standing Order that questions involving statistics, for instance, or involving considerable detail, should be put as unstarred questions, and, if I might respectfully also say, that Ministers who have long answers to deliver should circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If hon. Members will be good enough to accept the spirit of the Standing Order, I am sure it will be far better than any endeavour to impose restrictions on them.

Mr. HARDIE: When questions are put in at the Table, is there a system whereby a question gets its number? I have had several complaints from hon. Members that they have put in questions and have
found that, although they have given a question, say, to-day for next week, or sometimes for a fortnight in advance, that question is pushed away back beyond the possibility of an oral reply. Is the system that the question is numbered, and, if not, can a system of numbering each question according to when it is handed in be adopted?

Mr. SPEAKER: The system is that the questions, after they are handed in, and the day before they are to come on, are grouped according to the Ministers to whom they are addressed.

Mr. HARDIE: What numbers do they have?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that, within the group, they take precedence according to the order in which they are handed in. That, at least, is my understanding.

Mr. HARDIE: How is it done without numbering them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The utmost, care is taken in preparing questions for the Order Paper of the day.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to submit to you another aspect of the matter as far as it affects hon. Members, and to put to you one reason why a large number of Members prefer to have an oral answer. There is a well-grounded belief on their part that the Departments, in answering questions, are economical in the information which they give, and hon. Members therefore desire to have the opportunity of putting supplementary questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is one of the reasons why I declined to sort out the questions.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is this not also one of the very few privileges left to an individual Member to bring the grievances of his constituents before this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is one of the privileges which I desire to safeguard.

Mr. STURROCK: Is it not desirable that we should have an opportunity of raising every Scottish question, in view of the fact that the Government at every point refuse facilities to discuss any aspect of Scottish questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: As far as this Parliament is concerned, I think Scotland has had its full share of Parliamentary time.

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Sheffield Water Charges) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Reported with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Nottingham Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Special Constables Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. Attorney-General.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Special Constables Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (1921) AND DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT (1920) REPEAL BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Wallasey Embankment Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

The CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, the Committee will pardon me if, before proceeding to the discussion of the Vote, I make a very short statement, which for greater accuracy I have committed to writing, as to matters arising out of what passed on the Board of Agriculture Vote on Thursday last. It happens from time to time that strong appeals are made, either to Mr. Speaker or myself, to allow discussions to take place on matters which are congruous to some subject set down on the Paper, but which at the same time are not in order upon it. It is not always easy to decide on such appeals. No one would wish the rules to be interpreted in a narrow or pedantic spirit, but, on the other hand, they are not there for nothing, and, if they were lightly waived by the Chair, something like Parliamentary anarchy would result. On two occasions, I have come to the conclusion in Committee of Supply, that owing to the importance of the matter, the place it occupied in the minds of hon. Members, and its connection with an Order of the Day, I was justified in waiving a rule in order to allow freer discussion, subject always to the assent of the Committee.
The second occasion was on Thursday last. I had indicated my intention, through the usual channels, and, on taking the Chair, I expected something to be said on behalf of the Opposition parties as to whether they agreed or not to the course proposed. When, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) indicated his dissent, I thought it natural to ask whether or not he spoke for his party, and, as soon as the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Phillipps) said that he did so speak, I ruled that the suggested Debate could not take place.
I have since made some inquiries as to precedents, and I am bound to say that the general practice has been to make the waiver of a rule dependent at any rate upon the tacit acquiescence of all the
Members present in the House. I wish to say that I neither had, nor have, any intent of setting any new precedents overriding this practice. I desired only the convenience of the House, and I had no wish whatever to derogate from the existing rights of individual Members.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Might I ask you, arising out of what you have just been good enough to say, whether you have seen the Motion on the Paper standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and some other hon. Members to the following effect:
That, by the immemorial practice of this House, the Committee of Supply is the proper occasion for the redress of grievances and not for the discussion of legislation, and that the right of a Member to demand that the Committee of Supply should be so used is in virtue of his election to this House, and regardless of whether or not he is a member of any political party, or claims to speak on its behalf.
Might I ask whether we are to understand, from what you have just been good enough to say, that you would accept that Motion as truly defining the rights of Members and the practice of the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN: My attention has been drawn to the Motion. It appears to me to admirably express the soundest Parliamentary doctrine, and I entirely agree with it.

Captain BENN: I should like to express my thanks to you, Sir, for the statement which you have just been good enough to make to the Committee and, with the permission of my hon. Friends. I propose to withdraw the Motion.

The CHAIRMAN: I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE

DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,187,005, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Minister of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special
Schemes and Payments to Associations for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £6,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): There are two methods open to a Minister in presenting his Estimates. The older, or more conservative method if you will, was a close statistical analysis of the Estimate item by item and Subhead by Subhead: then there is the rather more modern method of treating the figures as matters of slightly less importance and endeavouring to give a general, and possibly a generous, descriptive account of the activities of the Department. There may be critics of both methods. The statistical method may be described as dreary and dull, and the descriptive method as perhaps on occasions too rosy. With the leave of the Committee, I propose to make the best of both worlds and to divide what I have to say into two portions. I will endeavour, in the first portion, to give a pretty close account of the statistics appearing in the Vote; and then, in the second part, to describe some of the chief activities of the Department.
The first duty of every Minister, under the present conditions of stringency, I take it is to demonstrate that every effort has been made to secure the maximum economy compatible with the efficient maintenance of the public service. The Estimate which I am asking the Committee to sanction is £16,187,005 net and £20,363,639 gross. It is worth mentioning, as showing the steady reduction in the cost of the Department, that these figures, net and gross, compare favourably with the figures of expenditure in 1920–21, when the net expenditure was £27⅓, millions, and the gross figure £28½ millions. In other words, the net estimated expenditure for 1923–24 is not much over half what it was three years ago. This reduction in expenditure is naturally reflected in a similar reduction in staff.
The Committee will appreciate that the staff required by my Department must
depend very largely upon the state of unemployment and the amount of work entailed in the payment of unemployment benefit. Obviously, when unemployment figures are high and there are large numbers in receipt of benefit, the staff required to deal with them is large. On the other hand, as unemployment diminishes and the numbers on benefit sink, the staff is reduced accordingly. Consequently, a very large proportion of the staff of the Ministry are on temporary engagement. Of the total staff of the Ministry on 1st April, 1923, approximately so large a proportion as 60 per cent. were temporary and only 40 per cent. permanent, and of this temporary staff a very large number were on weekly engagement. This enables us with great nicety to adjust the staff to the exact requirements of the unemployment situation. The figures of unemployment, I regret to say, remain, as we all know, terriby swollen, but., in spite of that fact, I have the satisfaction of assuring the Committee that there has been a steady and continuous reduction in staff. While the total average staff for the year 1921–22 was 25,500, for 1922–23 the figure had dropped to 20,500, and the Estimate which I am now presenting to the Committee is based on a staff figure throughout the year of only 15,300. Therefore, I take it, that is an indication of the efforts we are making to secure economy, but without detriment to the public service.
I will now, if I may, take some items in the Vote in somewhat closer detail and also refer to the Report of the Geddes Committee, because the standard laid down in that Report has, I think, to be taken as a not unreasonable touchstone of national finance at the present time. The Geddes Committee reported in 1921 on the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour as follows:
That owing to the uncertainty which prevails at the present time, and the direct bearing on the estimate of the rate of unemployment, the sum available for 1922–23 cannot be reduced below the amount shown in the preliminary Estimate.
The Estimate to which the Geddes Report referred was an Estimate of £15,000,000 or thereabouts, or, excluding the transferred Irish Services, £14,500,000. The Committee will bear in mind that in 1922 we passed two insurance measures involving increased contributions, and
the net increase for the past year charged on the Exchequer worked out at just over £3,500,000. There are also one or two small items now on my Vote which were not on the Vote at the time of the Geddes Inquiry. There is an item for telegraphs and telephones which was originally borne by the Post Office—because the policy now as is set out in the note at the foot of page 3 of the Estimates—is that each Department, with a view to economy should bear its own telegraphic and telephonic expenses. Secondly, there is now borne on my Vote expenditure for work in connection with International Labour Office. This formerly appeared under another heading, the Vote for the League of Nations. These two items represent about £97,300, and allowing for these additions, Insurance Act, telephones, telegrams, International Labour Office, I think what I may call the true, or corrected, Geddes figure for last year is £18,160,227. I am asking, as I have already informed the Committee, for the sum of £16,187,000, i.e., a reduction of almost exactly £2,000,000, or about 11 per cent.
Let me now take the items appearing on page 39 and subsequent pages. These items fall roughly under two heads. First of all, there are the ordinary services as appear under Subheads A to F. This is largely unemployment insurance work, and includes the general expenses of administration. Secondly, there are the post-War services and expenses incurred in respect of services arising out of the War, the main Subhead here being cost of training ex-service officers and men. With regard to the presentation of both these two main items, that is the ordinary services, and the extraordinary or post-War services, especially the training of ex-service men—regarding the presentation of both these items there is very considerable difficulty. Take the Unemployment Insurance Acts first of all. The Fund is contributory, as hon. Members know. The net average income is something in the neighbourhood of £49,000,000. Of this the employers contribute £19,000,000, the workers £17,000,000, and the State £13,000,000. The Fund is treated as a separate entity. The Minister of Labour is both a trustee for its preservation and the agent for its distribution. The fund
cannot distribute itself. The Minister and the Department provide the agency through the Employment Exchanges and the Minister receives in return payment from the Fund for services rendered by his Department and, to some small extent, by other Departments. But there is no separate account. The Fund does not hand over a lump sum to the Ministry for this agency work, but so far as the administration of the Fund is concerned, the cost of staff, wages, and other expenses are included in the Votes as shown on pages 39 and 40 of the Estimates, and then the payment from the Fund in return for these services appears by way of an Appropriation-in-Aid, as shown on page 41. The Committee will realise this makes the presentation of the figures a little complicated.
There is this further difficulty, namely, that the Appropriation-in-Aid from the Fund is calculated so as to cover the whole cost of administration of services in respect of unemployment benefit. Consequently economy in its administration is immediately represented by a reduction of the Appropriation-in-Aid, and does not show itself in a reduction of the net amount of the Vote, as in the case of other economies. In other words, as shown on page 42, the gross figures before the Appropriations-in-Aid are deducted, namely, £23,300,000 odd, for the year 1922–23, and £20,300,000 odd for the year 1923–24—or a saving of £3,000,000—do show the economies effected in the working of the Department, including the economies which enure mainly to the benefit of the Fund, more satisfactorily than do the net figures which show a decrease of a couple of millions.
Then I come to the other main item to which I referred—post-war services to ex-service men. Here, again, there is a difficulty. We shall be shortly entering on the sixth year since the Armistice. It is obvious that the post-war services of training and resettling disabled ex-service men in civil life are tending to draw to a close. The result of that is that the items under the second main head, that is, these services arising out of the war, are automatically shrinking, and there is not the usual steady basis of comparison as between one year and another that there is in normal departmental expenses.
Bearing these broad facts in mind, may I direct the attention of the Committee
for a few moments in some little detail to the Subheads of the Vote. First, take administration. Administration covers Subheads A to H2 on pages 39 and 40, and comprises a figure of £3,800,000 odd as against £4,900,000 odd last year. All these items, I am glad to say, show a real decrease, though on page 39 there is an item of expenditure which shows an apparent increase, namely, telegrams and telephones £46,000. I have stated already the reasons for the apparent increase this year. There was in fact an actual saving for the total charge in respect of telegrams and telephones. The charge last year including the proprortion for telephones appearing in the Post Office Vote was 66,400, whereas it is now only £51,000, a reduction of £15,400. Another item H2, under the head of Administration, shown on page 40, travelling and incidental expenses, shows a nominal increase of £27,350. This is due to the fact that £35,000 has been included in order to cover the expenses necessary in the working of the King's Roil Committees, to which I shall refer a little later. Allowing for this £35,000, there is, in fact, a decrease in ordinary travelling and incidental expenses of £7,650, being the difference between the £35,000 mentioned and the £27,350 shown as the increase. The total net reduction, compared with last year, under the Subheads which I have already mentioned, A to H2, is thus £1,076,898, equivalent to 22 per cent.
That brings me to the second great branch of the ordinary services, unemployment insurance. With regard to this we have to keep in mind the distinction between the two points I am going to indicate. First of all there are the actual contributions of money from the State to the Fund on the basis, broadly, as the Committee is aware, of one third of the joint contributions of employers and workmen. This is represented by Subhead I—£13,042,000. As the Committee will know, the first Act of 1922 amalgamated the temporary provision for unemployed workers' dependants with the general machinery of the Acts, and and there is no special provision this year as previously for unemployed workers' dependants, but provision is made under the general figure just given. What I have called agency charges, for staff premises, etc., are, as I have already explained, included in the
various Subheads for staff, etc., on pages 39 and 40, and the appropriate repayment from the Fund is indicated under the head of Appropriations-in-Aid (Subhead M—£4,097,792). If the Committee will look on page 65 of the document most hon. Members hold in their hands they will see that of the £4,097,792 Appropriation-in-Aid, £33,000 is referable to items other than unemployment insurance, so that the true figure of repayment from the Fund for services rendered by this and other Departments during the year is £4,064,792. Furthermore, included under the head of "Services rendered by other Departments," come such items as provision of premises, rent, etc., paid by the Office of Works, which work out altogether at about £800,000, making the true estimated figure of repayment for services rendered by my Department about £3,250,000. In other words, the Committee will notice that the whole of the charge for administration, which amounts to £3,800,000, and with Subhead J to £3,900,000 odd, will be covered all but about the sum of £700,000 by an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Insurance Fund.
A final word as to the Subheads in connection with services arising out of the War. I have already explained that these were automatically dwindling as the services tend to draw to an end. With the permission of the Committee I will come in a moment or two to a survey of the general work of training and resettling ex-service men, but while dealing with the figures, I should like to draw attention to Item P—industrial training of ex-service officers and men. This shows an apparent reduction during the current year of a figure a little short of £1,700,000. I quite expect that attention may be drawn to this figure, and that many hon. Friends of ex-service men will naturally say, "How is it possible, particularly when you, the Minister of Labour, still have a waiting list of 6,000 applicants in Great Britain, to reduce your Estimate?" I partly explained this in reply to a question the other day, and I can give the reason at once. The state of affairs is entirely due to the present industrial stringency. We cannot, until trade improves, pass more than a very limited number of persons into training, and even with the reduced Estimate we shall have, in the coming 12 months, a good many hundred places in the Government
training factories vacant and ready for trainees if the technical advisory committees—which have given us such admirable assistance in this work—are able to advise me to accept men for training. The Committee may rest assured that there is no intention whatever on the part of either the Government or myself to fail in carrying out the sacred obligation to train ex-service men, as laid down now for several years. I am determined, as trade improves, to press on and complete our training scheme with all possible speed. The expenditure if not incurred this year is merely deferred till next year, and I hope by then we shall be in a position to have cleared the waiting list altogether. I have now completed all I propose to say by way of an analysis of the figures in the Estimate.
I now turn to what I called a descriptive account of some of the chief activities of the Ministry to-day. I am afraid that I must omit Departments which I should have liked to have dealt with, for want of time, such as the juvenile employment centres. I do not think the record of the Government on this subject is one of which we need be in the least ashamed. Another subject is the provision for women's training borne on other Votes, but it would not be in order for me to deal with that subject now. It will, I think, be convenient if I take the subjects in the same order as they appear on pages 39 and 42 of the Estimates. The first item is administration and staff. No Minister—and I am sure my hon. Friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour would wish to be associated with me in what I am about to say—can be responsible for a great Department of State without realising the immense debt which not only he but the community owes to one of the most capable instruments of administration that the world has ever known—I mean the British Civil Service. To all the 15,000 or so of civil servants who represent this great Department of State on its official side I desire to tender my most profound recognition and thanks for their skill, for their hard work, and for their readiness to be of service at all times and under all circumstances. When all are rendering such good service it is difficult and almost invidious to make
any particular selection, but I should not be discharging my duty if I did not make special mention, first of all, of the managers and staffs of the Employment Exchanges.
I only wish hon. Members would visit those Exchanges more often, and those who do, I feel sure, will agree with me, not only as to the admirable work which the managers and their often much restricted staff carry on, frequently not in the most suitable premises, but also for the success they achieve in their work. In this connection I should like to tender my special thanks to the chairmen and members of the Employment Committees throughout the country. These Committees, consisting of employers' and workers' representatives as well as others, have been in active operation for some years, but during the last two and a-half years of great stress and storm, they have co-operated to help the Ministry to carry the burden of unemployment, and particularly the burden of allocating uncovenanted benefit, in a way which is beyond all praise. I have seen many Rota Committees at work. A large number of them sit daily and many of their sittings occupy the best part of the day. I have seen them considering with the utmost care case after case of applicants for benefit, and applying with skill and also with a human touch which has my unstinted admiration the administrative directions, not always easy to construe, which in the careful supervision of Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Minister has found himself obliged from time to time to lay down. I should also like to add a word of special thanks to the higher officials throughout the country and especially the Divisional Controllers for their personal help and service; and also to the skilled and expert secretarial and executive staff at the headquarters of the Ministry, and particularly its admirable head, the permanent secretary, Mr. H. J. Wilson.
The next item on the Paper is the Industrial Court. And here I should like to mention the whole subject of conciliation and the relations of the Ministry of Labour to industrial disputes. I should like to have discussed three subjects, namely, conciliation, the Industrial Court and the Whitley Councils, but time presses and the hands of the clock go round, and I know that our Debates to-day will be
restricted somewhat abnormally at or about 8.15. Therefore, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak I will be as brief as I can on this subject; and the rest of my speech. So far as conciliation is concerned the Committee should realise the steady, continuous and unobtrusive work of this Department year in and year out. The staff involved is not large; in fact, compared with the results achieved it is almost ludicrously small, more especially after the inevitable cuts which have been made on the ground of economy. The number of the headquarters staff dealing with industrial relations for the year 1923–24 is 34 as against 58 for the previous year, and 89 for the year before that. The total number of the provincial staff is 36 on my Estimates as compared with 41 last year and 65 during the previous year.
With regard to conciliation, I think the settlement of the jute dispute is a good example of the effective assistance which can be rendered by my Department. The lock-out notices have been withdrawn, and some 30,000 operatives have returned to work, and the difficult technical question of the four-enders will, I hope, be satisfactorily adjusted. It has now been referred to a Committee consisting of three employers and three operatives. The skilled and trusted Chief Labour Adviser to the Government, Sir David Shackleton, at my request has paid several visits to Dundee, and he has been unanimously chosen by both sides to be chairman of this technical Committee. In this connection I wish to say that I appreciate very much the courteous letter which I have received from the Lord Provost of Dundee, in which he says he desires to convey to me the grateful thanks of the community for the very valuable services which I and my Department have rendered to the city on this occasion. I should also like to say a word in regard to the Whitley Councils, but I am afraid I have no time to deal with the Industrial Court. The working of the Industrial Councils is probably familiar to members of the Committee. They are voluntary bodies, but my Department is concerned with their establishment and development, and it is worth mentioning that there are at the present time 63 such councils covering between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 of work-people. Undoubtedly these councils have been of value, not only in facilitating
the settlement of industrial disputes, but in creating better personal relationship and affording opportunity for regular discussion. We all know that it is suspicion which is the acid that corrodes human relationships, and all experience shows the difficulty, at any rate for Britishers, of remaining in a permanent attitude of suspicion towards other Britishers whom they meet constantly for the discussion of matters of common interest.
The next item I wish to draw attention to is a big one which involves the greatest burden which falls on the shoulders of my Department, and that is unemployment and unemployment insurance. I will first deal with the figures relating to unemployment. When speaking on the Amendment to the Address on 15th February, I said in anticipation that the unemployment figures which had been steadily improving since the 1st January would probably continue to fall during the spring. I know at the time I was accused of undue optimism, but I am glad to say that, as does occasionally happen, the critics of the Government have proved to be wrong and the Government Estimate on the whole proved to be reasonably right. On the 1st January the figure of unemployment was 1,485,875. There was a steady fall of about 20,000 per week every week until the 26th March. There was then a sudden increase of just over 40,000, due largely to holiday arrangements in Lancashire, but since Easter that steady improvement has been resumed again, and on the 9th of April the fall was 24,000. The Committee will see that for the week ending the 16th of April there is a further decrease of 21,170, and I wish to draw special attention to this reduction in the current week. This is all the more satisfactory if the Committee will bear in mind that the new period of benefit under the Insurance Act passed March last came into operation on the 11th of April, and therefore a certain number of persons will undoubtedly now have come back on benefit. For this reason the big reduction of 21,000 for the current week is all the more satisfactory.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the emigration statistics in this connection?

Sir M. BARLOW: The emigration statistics are undoubtedly of interest,
but I do not think they seriously affect these figures. At any rate, allowing for all these factors, it is with great pleasure that I am able to announce to the Committee that the figure of unemployment has now fallen to 1,239,500, which is the lowest figure yet reached in any one week since the high peak of unemployment in June, 1921, when the figure of registered unemployed persons, I believe, stood at about 2,000,000. There was, it is true, a very considerable drop, as the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) will remember, in the unemployment figures last autumn; but the lowest figure then recorded was 1,318,471, and the point which we have now reached is some 80,000 below that.
It would not be in order on these Estimates to review the whole Government programme with regard to unemployment. I have explained on more than one occasion how that programme stands on three main planks. First of all, relief works, road repairing, afforestation, and so on; secondly, stimulation and development of foreign trade, mainly by the Export Credits Scheme and the Trade Facilities Act; and, thirdly, the Unemployment Insurance provision. On the first two I can say nothing to-day, but I will say a word or two now as to Unemployment Insurance.
First of all, I should like to express what I am sure the Committee as a whole realise, namely, the appreciation which is felt on all hands, both inside and outside this House, of the statesmanship and foresight displayed by the Member for North-West Camberwell—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—who was responsible for carrying through the House the principal Measure of August, 1920, and also all the subsequent amending Insurance Acts, except that of last March. The right hon. Gentleman laid well and truly the foundations of what is proving more and more each day to be a, solid and noble structure, which has given shelter and help to millions in the stormy period of depression, and of paralysing unemployment, through which we have been passing.
I indicated in the course of the Debates on the Insurance Act in March that I felt the time had come to survey the whole ground, and to make preparation for the
proper readjustment of Unemployment Insurance on a permanent basis which lies before us directly times become more normal. With that end in view I directed, early in January, a close statistical inquiry, of a very thorough character, to be undertaken in every exchange in the country. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been examined, and the results are now being subjected to a critical analysis in the Department. I would also like to say one word as to the rules for uncovenanted benefit, to which I also referred in the discussion last March. The Committee will bear in mind that benefit payable under the Insurance Act flows in what I have called two great streams. One is that of covenanted, or contract benefit, where the applicant receives benefit on a strictly contractual basis in the ratio of one week's benefit for every six weeks' contribution. On the other hand, in the case of uncovenanted benefit, I have a discretion, under the Acts, as Minister of Labour and Trustee for the fund, to pay benefit, subject to regulations and directions, ahead of contributions, where it is desirable to do so in the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell laid down rules restricting the payment of uncovenanted benefit in certain cases, such as single persons living at home, married women, and so on. I promised during the discussion on the Bill, to reconsider those directions, and also, if possible to have them codified and issued as one document. As to the latter point, that is now in hand. As to the former, have given careful consideration, with the expert staff of the Department, to those directions. I have received deputations about them, and I have made inquiries in various directions. The result, shortly, is to convince me of the care and wisdom with which the Member for North-West Camberwell devised the various existing rules. I am satisfied that, on the whole, they are sound in principle and effective in operation, and I do not propose, generally speaking, to disturb them.
There are, however, two points in which I think a case can be made out for some modification in these different rules. First, with regard to single men and women, mainly young persons, living at home. At present, apart from cases of
hardship, these are excluded from uncovenanted benefit if the relatives with whom they live can reasonably be called upon to support them. Possibly, in some cases, not quite enough allowance has been made for considerations of age in determining whether it was reasonable for the applicants to look to their relatives for support, or whether cases of hardship had arisen. I propose to draw the attention of the Committees to this point, and to the importance of giving proper weight to considerations of age, especially at 25 and later. In practice, many Committees have, in fact, been already exercising a wider discretion in such cases.
Secondly, with regard to aliens, these, when engaged in industry, are compelled to pay contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund (but they are at present, unless they have served in the War, ineligible for uncovenanted benefit). They are eligible for covenanted benefit, but they get it as a matter of contract. At present, however, apart from those who served in the War, they are ineligible for uncovenanted benefit. In view of the fact that they are compelled to pay contributions, I propose to relax the restrictions somewhat in the case of aliens in employment—other than former enemy aliens—provided they have been continuously resident in this country for a considerable number of years, and otherwise satisfy the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I must treat of one subject more before I sit down, and that is the big subject of the training provision made by the State for ex-service officers and men. I think due recognition is very often not accorded to the great, and even stupendous, efforts which the State has made to grapple with this question of training and settlement of disabled men. This effort of training is, of course, altogether apart from the enormous sum of about £90,000,000 spent annually in pensions and from a great many other sums expended in other directions. Take only one—the assisted passages for something like 80,000 ex-service men who have sought settlement in the Dominions. Taking the question of provision for training and settlement alone, I will give figures in a moment showing that the large number of 320,000 men have received, or are now receiving State help in aid of re-settlement by way
of grants for training, industrial and professional grants for the completion of education, grants for training in agriculture and forestry, and grants under the Civil Liabilities Fund. If it will not weary the Committee, and I think it is right it should be done, I should like to give the precise figures. They are as follows. At the end of March, 1923, first of all with regard to the great industrial training scheme under the Ministry of Labour, there have terminated training 69,500. I will give the figures in round hundreds. There are now in training 16,400—total 86,000. That is taking no account of a further 11,000 who were trained by the Ministry of Pensions before the Ministry of Labour took up the burden. Under the Maintenance and Training Grants Scheme for ex-officers and men of similar standing, under the Ministry of Labour the total figure is 18,000; under the Board of Education it is 33,000, and under the Ministry of Agriculture it is 3,000. That is including those who have terminated training and those already in training. Under the Officers' University Technical Training Scheme, 4,000; the Business Training Scheme, 891; Royal Warrant Training, under the Ministry of Labour, 812; under the Board of Education, 96, and under the Ministry of Agriculture, 615; Civil Liability Grants, 116,914; and under the very interesting and effective Interrupted Apprenticeship Scheme, 44,698; making a total of, as I have said, in round numbers, 320,000 persons. I think, and I believe the members of the Committee will agree with me, that that is a very remarkable figure. The arrangements made have not been perfected. There is much yet to be done. No one is more conscious of that than myself, but while we press on towards the completion, while we do all in our power to remedy the defects, do not let us forget the good work that has already been accomplished.
I wish I could give details of several of the above items. I wish I could give details of the training schemes for ex-officers and men of similar education. I will only say, with regard to that, that there are a large number still seeking professions. I am endeavouring, with the assistance of the newly constituted Central Committee, operating jointly with, and having upon it representatives from my Department and also from the
Officers' Association, and under the Chairmanship of Sir William Purchase, to initiate, now that trade is beginning to improve, a real effort to get these 8,000 ex-officers absorbed.
I should like to say something of the Civil Liabilities Grants; and I should like to speak of the Interrupted Apprenticeships Scheme, but the time is not at my disposal. With regard, however, to the first item, namely, the 70,000 trained under the great industrial training scheme, the completion of which is now well in sight, I should like to invite the Committee to take a short survey of what has been accomplished. The Committee may be interested in the latest figures with regard to the Industrial Training Scheme. So far as Great Britain is concerned they are as follow:


Trained
…
64,600


In training
…
14,400


On waiting list
…
6,300


Awaiting improverships
…
3,500


I should like, if I may, to say one word as to this whole problem of training the ex-service man, and the way the problem has been handled. It was one of great difficulty. The men were unable, many of them, on account of their war disabilities to return to their pre-War oecupation, and new and suitable trades had to be found. Then they had to give the necessary training. The men were adults. The normal system of apprenticeship designed for boys was clearly unsuitable. For instance, in all skilled trades the apprenticeship extended over a longer period than grown men could afford it acquiring a new craft. There was, therefore, a technical and educational problem which was both novel and difficult, namely, how to graft on to the normal industrial system of the country a scheme for providing these grown men, and disabled at that, with a knowledge of their new craft.
5.0 P.M.
The key to the problem of the industrial training of the disabled men was found in the Government Instructional Factory. This is an institution equipped and laid out on the lines of an ordinary productive workshop in the trade to be taught. It contains thoroughly up-to-date machinery of the standard type in use in the locality. The conditions we reproduce are, so far
as possible, those of the ordinary workshop; the men clock in and clock out; and they are required to accustom themselves to ordinary factory discipline. The trainees are taught by carefully selected craftsmen, practically all of them trade unionists. They begin, as a rule, with the simple exercises, to enable them to learn the rudiments of the trade, but at as early a stage as possible they are put on to actual productive work. Orders are obtained from Government Departments, from the trade and, if necessary, from private individuals, in order to make sure that so far as possible the men are trained in making objects of real value and use, which are ultimately sold. I venture to say that the output of these factories is a surprise and a revelation to those who visit them. In this connection, I should like to give one quotation only—I have received scores, if not hundreds of similar testimonials. I will quote one letter, from an engineering firm of prominence. It is to this effect:
My foreman duly visited the Government Training Factory yesterday, and I am pleased to be able to inform you that he was not only delighted, but positively enthusiastic over the methods of training he saw there, as well as the results produced by these methods.
I could quote many more similar opinions. It may be said that the training in the factory is excllent, but what are the chances of the trainees getting into employment, and especially of finding improverships, so as to complete their training? I very much regret, in regard to improverships, that there is still so large a number as 3,600 men who cannot find vacancies for their proper further training, with maintenance, after the period in the factory is finished. I have done all in my power to scour the country for further vacancies. The canvassers, initiated by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell, have been in full operation, and their efforts have not been unsuccessful. In the last 12 months, in spite of continued and acute unemployment, no less than 5,373 improverships in the skilled trades have been found, and filled by men from the instructional factories, making a total of vacancies filled by this means, since the canvassers commenced their work, of about 10,000. Another interesting point is that, as trade improves, I have every hope that the numbers for whom vacancies can be found weekly will steadily
improve, and I have reasons for saying this. The average number of improverships found in January was about 80; the average in February was about 140; while in March, I am glad to say, we got up to a weekly average of 180.
I have mentioned that, apart from the 11,000 which the Ministry of Pensions have trained, the Ministry of Labour have trained, at their training centres, about 70,000 persons. It may be asked, what has become of them, and how far have they benefited from their training? I referred just now to certain statistical information that I was getting together. At the time of that inquiry, I took the opportunity of making a special investigation as to the number of ex-trainees receiving benefit. Considering the immense difficulties of the times through which we are passing; considering the fact that the trainees were all men suffering, at any rate, under some degree of disability; I do not think it would have been surprising if one-third or one-half of our trainees had failed to find employment. I have not yet received the full analysis from all areas, but I can say this, that out of the areas already investigated, the result is extremely encouraging. The number of ex-trainees receiving benefit, taken in all the towns where we have made investigations, was less than 7 per cent. of the number of trainees trained. This compares most favourably with the average figure of unemployment of the insured population throughout the country at the time of the analysis, which was over 12 per cent.
I wish I could give further evidence along the same lines, but I think the Committee may be satisfied that the country and the ex-service men have got good value for the money which has been spent upon this training scheme. It would have been quite impossible to have achieved this success without the enormous amount of voluntary help which has been received from representatives of employers and trade unions working through the technical advisory committees, from technical schools, and officers of education authorities, and from many other helpers, to all of whom I tender my most sincere and hearty thanks. In conclusion, may I say that it will be, in my view, ten thousand pities if these 30 or 40 great instructional factories, with their splendid equipment and experience
of craft training, are to be lost to the permanent industrial life of the country.
Lastly, let me say something as to the King's Roll. The Committee will bear in mind that a Select Committee of the House of Commons was set up last April, and did excellent work under the Chairmanship of the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson). Most of their recommendations were at once accepted by the Government, and one of the most useful was the suggestion that there should be set up, in the chief municipalities, a King's Boll Committee, with a view to persuading all employers to accept the responsibility of registration on the Roll. The figures of firms entered on the Roll have recently been revised. Of those originally registered, 21,200 have renewed their undertaking. Probably, some 3,000 more will eventually accept renewal. These figures, together with 5,000 more recently entered, who have not yet come up for renewal, make a total figure of about 28,000—somewhat over. In order to co-ordinate the work of the Committees, a King's Roll National Council has commenced work under the most favourable auspices. Field-Marshal Earl Haig, I am glad to say, has found time to add to his many other untiring and successful efforts on behalf of ex-service men by accepting the Chairmanship of the Committee, and the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham is devoting his energy and experience to the same good cause as Vice-Chairman. The National Council have already inaugurated a series of meetings in Liverpool, the City of London, Westminster, and other places, and the results of their efforts are already beginning to be apparent. It would only require a very small effort by every employer who employs from 20 to 25 workpeople, and over, to find employment for practically the whole of the disabled men out of work. In fact, if, on the average, every such employer took on two additional men, the work would be done.
The figures with regard to local authorities on the King's Roll are still not as satisfactory as I should wish. Those on the Roll number 1,230—it is only fair to say that in this number are comprised nearly all the large local authorities—while those not on the Roll number 1,592. This question of the attitude of the local authorities towards the King's Roll is a serious one; it is one in which I am fully
aware a large number of members of the Committee are interested. The King's Roll National Council are giving it their close attention. I can assure the Committee, that it will be my constant endeavour, with the assistance of the King's Roll National Council, to use every effort humanly possible with a view to getting the largest number of employers in the shortest possible time satisfactorily registered on the Roll, and both by this, and by all other means, so soon as industry picks up to aim at securing the absorption of every disabled man into proper remunerative employment. I beg to commend the Estimates to the consideration of the members of the Committee, and to thank them for giving me their courteous attention.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to make a few observations on the Vote for the Department with which I was very proud to be associated for two and a half years. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the form and substance of his statement, and upon the spirit of cheerful optimism which pervaded it throughout. I associate myself with him most cordially in paying a tribute to the invaluable and indispensable voluntary services of the members of the Local Employment Committees, of the Technical Advisory Committee and the panels of business men—who have worked so hard to find billets for ex-officers and men—and to the Local Education Authorities, who placed so much expert skill and power at our disposal in connection with the training of ex-service men. Over and above the voluntary services of all those good people, I associate myself, of course, with the very warm tribute of praise with the Minister of Labour paid to the Headquarters Staff, the Divisional Staffs, and to the official staffs of the Local Employment Exchanges. During the whole of the long period of grave depression through which we have been passing, and from which we have been suffering, all these men and women, voluntary and paid officials, have rendered services the value of which it would be difficult indeed to overestimate. I look back upon my association with them, day by day, with the most profound admiration and gratitude.
The second thing I want to say is this. During my term of office I became conscious
of the fact that some people—certainly not many in number, but nevertheless pretty persistent in the expression of their view—held the view that the Ministry of Labour was a quite useless, if nor indeed a perfectly harmful, institution. The number of people that held that view were not many, but they were there, and they expressed their views pretty freely. The Trade Boards, to them, were an intolerable nuisance; they ought to go. "Why should not an employer pay wages at a rate for which a person was willing to work?" That was the sort of proposition. This Industrial Relations Branch, to which such a handsome and well-merited tribute has been paid, was a mere fussy, interfering body, the very existence of which prevented an amicable settlement of disputes which, but for its existence, or owing to its intervention, would have been settled long before by employers and employed themselves.
These Employment Exchanges were absolutely useless except to draw from very heavily taxed people and an overburdened Exchequer large sums of money for officials who could find jobs for nobody but themselves—and so on and so on: and the argument always concluded with, "And the sooner this thing is abolished altogether, the better." I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that this very short-sighted and obscurantist view, held by a few people but held very vehemently—the sort of view which takes the attitude that any endeavour to make any provision for any social service of any kind is a kind of coquetting with Socialism—I congratulate my right hon. Friend that that view is not, apparently, so industriously and so vehemently expressed as it used to be six months ago. His charm of manner, which I do not possess, is most enagaging, but I doubt whether, re-assuring and soothing as it undoubtedly is, it is altogether responsible for the change which has come o'er the spirit of the dream. Anyhow, I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the apparent calm which, from that quarter at any rate, has fallen upon his labours.
His task is heavy enough in all seriousness. It has its perplexities at every point, over a long extended line which touches workaday human affairs all the time. There are those confronting him, or a section of them, who will inevitably
declare that his work is insufficient and paltry. They will say he is not doing half enough, but that is what we have got to expect. There are probably those also who will say with equal vehemence that he is doing far too much. So far as I can see, and I watch the matter, naturally, with the closest interest, that section—which I agree is a small one—which has in the past taken the view that far too much was being done, are going very pianissimo just now, and I felicitate them upon their judgment. I think they will do well to continue to play awhile on a muted string.
I have a third general observation to make. I should like to remove a pretty common misapprehension about this issue. The Minister himself was at great pains to analyse and dissect it, but still I think there is a very great deal of misapprehension about it. People say, "Here we are, taxed to the teeth, and you are providing over 20 millions of money to support this officialdom of a Ministry that did not even exist pre-War, and that fact is proof positive of the megalomania of profligacy of the times." That is the sort of way in which it is put, but it should be clearly understood—and I will try, though it will be difficult, to make it more clear—that most of the money in this Estimate is provided for two purposes, and two purposes only. The first is to find the State's contribution of £13,000,000, in respect of 12,000,000 insured people as against 2,750,000 insured people pre-War. Obviously, the contribution must be much larger, as we have extended, since the War, the number of persons insured from 2,750,000 to 12,000,000. In the second place, the other large sum in this Estimate is furnished for the purpose of resettling in civil life ex-officers and men; and that, of course, is entirely a post-War obligation.
With that fact in mind, let us analyse this provision. Here is a gross proposed expenditure, by Parliamentary Vote and Appropriation - in - Aid, of nearly £21,000,000. As we have been told, over £13,000,000 of it is the State's contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, while £3,500,000 more is the provision which is made for services arising out of the War and for the administration of those services. That leaves £5,000,000, roughly, for the whole of the
administration of the Ministry of Labour, including the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and, in talking about the Insurance Fund, my right hon. Friend, if I may say so with respect, did well to recall to us the fact that the total amount to be administered is not £13,000,000, but £13,000,000 plus the contributions of the employers and the employed; and a footnote on page 39 of the Estimate shows that the amount to be expended this year will be, roughly, about £50,000,000. The cost of administering the Insurance Act is, as we have been told, roughly, £4,000,000, and that comes out of the Fund; it is not a charge against the State, except in so far as it is debited against the State's own contribution. Therefore, of the £5,000,000 outstanding, £4,000,000 has gone, and as to what remains for the whole of the administration of the Ministry and all its work—its Trade Boards, its Industrial Court, its Conciliation Boards, its Industrial Relations Branch, its International Labour Organisation, its collection and compilation of labour statistics, and the work of its Employment Exchanges, in so far as they are not engaged upon insured persons—what does it come down to? Three-quarters of a million of money. I say that that figure alone is a witness to the justness of the tribute which the Minister himself paid to the devoted services of the loyal staff of the Ministry.
As regards the permanent side of the work of the Ministry, I do not propose to say anything to-day about Trade Boards. We shall await the promised Bill, which, I presume, will, in the main, carry out the recommendations of the Cave Committee. In the unemployment problem, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, improvement is painfully slow. He told us that we began the year with 1,485,500 persons registered as wholly unemployed, and that we have, so far, got down to 1,239,500, which, as he says, is the lowest figure, not only as far back as June, 1921, but the lowest figure as far back as March, 1921. It is the lowest figure for over two years. So far so good. My right hon. Friend has extended the unemployment benefit to the middle of October next. He had no other alternative. Further than that, he has taken powers to continue the scheme of the Insurance Act—and let it be remembered that it is an emergency scheme—from
October, 1923, to October, 1924, and later if necessary. That is all right as a standby, but it is not enough, and I must press upon my right hon. Friend once more, if I may do so, the necessity that he and his Department should sit down and, with the experience of the last 2½ years, lay plans for the permanent handling of the unemployment problem when the present depression shall have passed away, always remembering that the first and main objective in the laying of such plans must be continuity of employment, with money relief as a rather bad second best.
There are schemes of great public utility in the air which my right. hon. Friend's Department ought to be at work examining. There are schemes suggested for still further great arterial roads, electrical power development, canals, waterways, afforestation, land reclamation. They ought to be hammered out now by the Department for ready use, now that my right hon. Friend's hands are lightened by the fall in the number of unemployed people, and in registration, and so on. They ought to be hammered out now for ready use at any time of future trade depression, when we have passed the depression from which I hope we are passing now, at any rate, if slowly. My right hon. Friend must not forget that the permanent unemployment problem which we are going to face in the future is going to be much larger in volume, and very different in character, from the unemployment problem of the past. To the same end, the Department ought to be considering and suggesting the placing of local and central contracts, having regard to fluctuations of trade at the moment, and, further, I suggest to the Department that they should invite the Joint Industrial Councils under the Whitley scheme to consider whether it is not possible, in private industrial concerns, so to adjust operations as to secure greater continuity of employment notwithstanding trade fluctuations. I am not sure that that is not a possible proposition. At any rate, I wish the Department would no into all these schemes and have them ready when they will be needed in the time to come. As regards the unemployment insurance scheme itself, the Department should, if I may say so, go on considering the question of insurance by
industries, about which the last word has not yet been said by a long way—[An HON. MEMBER: "And never will be."] That may very well he—and, further, the scheme provided in the Act of 1920 for supplementation of the State scheme, industry by industry, as the leaders of industry deem expedient. My own view, for what it is worth, is that, when that is fully examined, what will happen will be that public opinion will come down in favour of supplementation of the existing scheme as a better expedient than contracting out, and—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that those matters will involve legislation.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir. I beg pardon. I would point out, with great respect, that in the Act of 1920 one of the matters about which I had been speaking is provided for in Section 18, and the other is provided for in Section 20. As regards the administration of the Insurance Act, I suggest that, even as an experiment, my right hon. Friend should see whether, in the smaller industrial areas, at any rate, he could not get the benefit administered by voluntary committees of trade unions, employers, and municipalities. If he could do that, he would certainly save a very considerable sum which is now debited against the Fund itself for purposes of administration. As regards the Employment Exchanges themselves, I should just like to say this: Clearly, as the present depression passes away, and their hands are relieved of the heavy work of registration and payment of benefit, every endeavour will have to be made to bring those Exchanges back to the original purpose for which they were designed, namely, the placing of the man in want of a job, without delay, in touch with the job that wants the man. If that be not done, I have no doubt whatever that the Employment Exchanges will be in very grave danger of being destroyed altogether, which I think would be most unfortunate.
There is only one other feature of the permanent work of the Ministry to which I desire to call attention, and that has reference to the development of what is called Whitleyism, which is in the charge of the Ministry. In March, 1917, we had-submitted to us the initial Report of a Sub-committee on the relations between employers and employed—a Sub-committee,
in fact, of the Reconstruction Committee. I have always held the view that in that Report there is embedded the germ of a great idea. May I read a quotation from it?
In the interest of the community it is vital that after the War the co-operation of all classes established during the War should continue, and more especially with regard to the relations between employers and employed. For securing improvement in the latter it is essential that any proposals put forward should offer to work-people the means of attaining improved conditions of employment and a higher standard of comfort generally, and involve the enlistment of their active and continuous co-operation in the promotion of industry. To this end the establishment for each industry of an organisation representative of employers and workpeople to Bare as its object the regular consideration of matters affecting; the progress and wellbeing of the trade from the point of view of those engaged in it, so far as this is consistent with the general interests of the community, appears to us necessary.
In pursuance of that recommendation from the Committee presided over by the present Speaker of the House, the late Government encouraged, through the Ministry of Labour, in every way, the establishment, industry by industry, of joint industrial councils with associated district, and works committees, and we have been told to-day there are 63 of these industrial councils and they cover between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 work-people. They have come into existence at a time of the greatest difficulty. Falling prices and markets in collapse have thrust upon them a readjustment of the economic conditions of labour of a particularly disagreeable and difficult character, and it is due to the spirit which underlies their purpose that they have survived at all in a great many eases. But survived they have, though they had some very stiff hurdles to take at the outset.
What is going to be the future of this great conception? It will either go forward or it will fall back. It is challenged by a powerful group which protests that the interests of the employer and employed can never be identical. That is the challenge, that it must always be pull devil, pull baker between the two. That is a challenge to the spirit and conception of the Whitley proposition. One or other of these conceptions has to prevail. [Interruption.] I am not prophesying just now: I am not so ready
as the hon. Member to prophesy. One or other, the Whitley conception or the proposition that there can never be community of interest between employer and employed, will prevail, and on the answer to it depends the future prosperity of British industry. I am all for the Whitley conception, the policy of bringing employers and employed together, so that, each may begin to realise the other's point of view, and they may pool their experiences and may discover a solid identity of interest in matters on which certain people say there never can be any community of view at all, and may even learn in the course of time that each is not necessarily the born enemy of the other. There is Whitleyism—63 industrial councils covering 4,000,000 of people—having passed through its most difficult experience in the initial stages of its work. It is either going forward or it is going back because of this challenge.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: If the Whitley Councils were established to determine the differences between employers and workmen in regard to wages and conditions, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is no difference between the two points of view?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Whitley Councils have acted in frequent cases as conciliating bodies. Here is the proposition, that there is a community of interest between these two parties. Underlying the Whitley conception is this proposition, that you can secure and can make clear to both sides that there can be identity of interest between their operations.

Mr. MACLEAN: You can come to an agreement upon one particular question which is the issue at the moment. That is all.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been President of one and I know. You will come to see each other's point of view and understand each other, and find identity of interest where hon. Members to-day say none can exist. That is what will be the result. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your are prophesying."] I am tempted into prophesying by the bad example I have had set me. Here is this scheme and it has had a very difficult existence. The recommendation of March, 1917, has had two or three years of actual working. I ask my right hon. Friend very seriously to consider whether the time has not come
authoritatively to review the experience of the working of the Whitley scheme and to see whether, if at all, its improvement and development require any modification. That is a very serious proposition to make to him, because it is clear that fundamental issues are involved. Therefore I do not press him for an answer now, but I will ask him to put that to his colleagues in the Cabinet and turn the matter over in his mind.

Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD having come with a message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1923.
2. Fees (Increase) Act, 1923.
3. William Brown Nimmo Charitable Trust Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
4. South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Act, 1923.
5. Wallasey Embankment Act, 1923.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,187,005, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Minister of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes and Payments to Associations for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I wish to turn to one feature of the temporary side of the Minister's work, namely, the training of disabled ex-service men. In regard to ex-service men generally, we have not done all we could have wished, because we have been very seriously handicapped by heavy financial embarrassments, and by bad trade, more persistent and more grave than anything in our industrial history; but I rejoice, frankly, with my right hon. Friend that we have been able to do so much in the circumstances. I doubt very much whether there is any other country that has done as much, or could have done as much, as we have done. Apart from the annual pensions charge, which is now £73,500,000 in the Estimates this year, we have put up in one way or another about £100,000,000 in our endeavour to requite the obligation we owe to the ex-service men.
I want to say a few words about the disabled ex-service men. We undertook to train the man who was so badly disabled that he could not go back to his own craft, in a new craft, where his disability would be as little of a handicap as possible. We have heard to-day that between the Pensions Ministry and the Ministry of Labour 80,000 of these men have been trained, and there are 14,500 men now in training and 6,000 on the waiting list.
I confess that the 6,000 disabled men on the waiting list rather surprised me. I thought the number was very much larger than 6,000. I thought it would be nearer 16,000. Many of the 16,000 are still in hospital under treatment, and not ready for training yet. Many of the courses are not completed until the man has been to a private employer as an improver, but since bad trade set in during the last two and a half years we have had the greatest trouble to provide these improverships. We have heard of the appointment of canvassers and that a number of improverships have been secured, but there still remain 3,600 of these disabled men, whom we have trained in instructional factories, who cannot get improverships. That is a pity, because they are forgetting what they began to learn. It has not been fixed in their mind. I do not need to be told that the officers of the Department and the Minister himself, will do everything they can directly things pick up, to get these
6,300 men into improverships. In regard to finding employment for these disabled men, whether we have trained them or not, the King's Roll is our great agency. It is not universally known what that means. It is remarkable, I will not say how ignorant, but how lacking in knowledge people are. It means this, that we say to an employer, "If you will reserve 5 per cent. of your places for disabled ex-service men, you will do yourself the honour—I call it nothing less—to write your name on the King's Roll, and you will be able to use the Seal of the Roll." Here, again, bad trade has been a tremendous handicap. Apart from bad trade, we have really not had the success we ought to have had with the local authorities.

Mr. J. JONES: What about Lord Leverhulme? Leave the local authorities out. I will go for him later.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Then you will go for both. The local authorities have a very special responsibility in the matter, because they could set such an example in their own locality. The Select Committee which sat last year under the Presidency of the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson) recommended that a fresh effort should be made and a new impulse given to the King's Roll. The hon. and gallant Member and his colleagues of the Committee thought that in each locality there should be set up a King's Roll Committee, charged with the duty of considering the means of the severely disabled men. That is a very important and urgent matter. Many of these men are not economic units, they are trying to hold on to a job against the competition of the street corner and they are not fit to do it. I hope the King's Roll Committees will make it one of their first duties to examine the case of the badly disabled man who is trying to struggle along, badly handicapped as he is, and that they will push the King's Roll, find improverships for the trained men, and organise "after care" for disabled men, suitable to local conditions. The activities of these local Committees were to be co-ordinated by a National Council to which my right hon. Friend has referred, the National King's Roll Council. I am glad that Lord Cave was so good as to become the President. They have had two
meetings, and I understand that they will hold their third meeting on the 3rd May. As regards the progress of the local King's Roll Committees, I understand that 299 invitations were sent out to the local areas and that 159 King's Roll Committees have been started or are in course of being set up.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: 202.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that 299 invitations were sent out and that 159 King's Roll Committees have been set up or are in progress of being set up, and that in 44 other areas the local employment committees are carrying on the work with the complete identification of the local authority. There are 96 areas where negotiations are still proceeding. I appeal to Lord Mayors, Mayors, Lord Provosts, and Provosts, to take this thing up vigorously. The Committee cannot fail to remember Lord Haig's famous message to the men in April, 1918, when the enemy made his last desperate fight to get to the coast:
Every position must be held to the last man.
These men did bold their positions, but now not only can they not hold their positions, but they cannot get them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What have you done for them?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have done all we could.

Mr. J. JONES: You did everybody you could.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am quite prepared not to receive the commendation of my hon. Friend.

Mr. JONES: You will never get it.

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is one of the best testimonials I have ever received. Let it go at that. There are between 70,000 and 80,000 ex-service men unemployed. The Committee over which my hon. and gallant Friend presided made this comment, to which it is really worth while calling attention. They said:
It is obvious that the sentiment in favour of preferential treatment and generally, sympathy towards the disabled ex-service man is on the decline. The reduction in the number of firms on the King's Roll is evidence of this. Witnesses have corroborated the fact and it is a
natural result of memory fading by the lapse of four years since the conclusion of the Armistice.
6.0 P.M.
With great respect, I do not agree with that. I do not think that people are forgetting. I know this, that British business men have had an atrociously had time, and quite a number of the firms could not renew their obligation to go on the King's Roll because they had actually gone out of business as a result of bad trading. There is no good in being unreasonable. We have to face the facts. When things take up, and they are taking up, as the figures show, this is the time to press the case of these men. There are at least 20,000 firms in this country, each with 25 employés or more, who are not on the King's Roll. I dare-say that many of them are employing their quota, though their names are not on the King's Roll. I wish that they would go on it. It would encourage the others.
Now with regard to local authorities. The larger public authorities in England and Wales have not been doing badly, but there is room for improvement. The Minister gave the figures generally, but I would like to give them in more detail. In London the London County Council, the City Corporation, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Metropolitan Water Board, and all the Metropolitan councils are on. That is fine.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that we are no.

Dr. MACNAMARA: You are, and I am sure that, you will be glad to hear it. Poplar would do its duty in that respect. Of the 28 boards of guardians in the London area, seven are not on. If the answer is that they employ a lot of women labour, nurses, and so on, the Ministry of Labour will meet that by ex-chiding those employés from any calculation representing the 5 per cent. of employés who will be necessary to place them on the roll. Taking England and Wales, 39 of the county councils are on and 23 are not. All the county boroughs on, which, again, is fine. One hundred and seventy-seven of the town councils are on, and 76 are not. Four hundred and forty-two of the urban district councils are on, and 339 are not. One hundred and seventy-six rural district councils are on, and
472 are not. One hundred and sixty-five boards of guardians are on and 440 are not. I know that some of these bodies are very small bodies, and we do not want to be unreasonable about this, but that does not apply to the 76 town councils in this country who are not on the Roll. Taking the case of Scotland, I am rather surprised at the figures when we recall the Scottish pride which marks one of the most dauntless races in the world. Of the 33 county councils, only nine are on. Of the 99 county district committees, 23 only are on. I would suggest to hon. Friends in all parts of the House that they can do a good stroke of work if each will inquire in his own locality as to how the local authorities stand in this matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do you know the reasons why they are not on?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Have you ever inquired?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Many times. I am sure that the facts have only to be mentioned to get cordial support from all hon. Friends in bringing about a better state of affairs. Long ago we laid down that, except in very special circumstances, a firm which was not on the Roll could not get a Government contract. That has been very valuable indeed, and I observe with great pleasure that 206 local authorities also now restrict the giving of contracts to firms which are on the Roll, while 166 more give preference to such firms. I should like to see this policy much more generally adopted. I make no apology for mentioning these facts in detail. There is no Member of this Committee who does not want to do the right thing by these men, and who would not be glad to lend a hand to get these disabled men into employment, and help to recognise the profound obligation to them under which we all rest for the sacrifices which they have made on our behalf.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will stand for only a few minutes between my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who have much more authority to speak on the question of unemployment than I have. I am one of those who took an active part in the spread of this idea of the King's Roll, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a few words on the
general question. I do protest against the idea that is implied in the popular use, and the newspaper use, of the word "dole." I do not know any grosser misconception of what has really taken place in regard to the relief of unemployment than the use of this word "dole." The greater part of the so called "dole" is money contributed by the workers and their employers, and the least part of it is given by the State, and to talk of men getting a dole when they are given back the money which they contributed in the shape of insurance is, I think, not only misleading, but very insulting.

Sir M. BARLOW: Hear, hear!

Mr. O'CONNOR: My people in Liverpool, among whom there is a great deal of unemployment, have a strong feeling that the amount given is insufficient to enable them to support their wives and families in anything like a decent condition. There is no use in giving a man money if the amount is not sufficient to enable him to bring up his children in such a way that they are likely to become good citizens. With regard to the King's Roll, I had the honour some years ago of forming in this House a Rothband Committee, and I intend, if I get the support which I may confidently expect from all parts of this House, to re-establish that Committee to watch the operations of the King's Roll and, where we can, to bring the defects and collapses, which undoubtedly do occur, to the attention of the Minister. My right hon. Friend will understand that I am doing nothing bet giving a friendly push on this question, and perhaps he will welcome any attempt on my part to strengthen his hands.
It seems to me that the principle of the King's Roll is to bring public opinion to bear upon employers of labour throughout the country, and, by the force of public opinion, to induce them to find employment to the extent of five per cent. of their employés for disabled ex-service men. The results have been considerable but far below what they should be, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) quoted a sentence from the Report of the Committee, over which the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) presided, which said that memories of the Great War were dying.
To a certain extent that is tree but I should be ashamed of my countrymen if that statement were true to the extent that the men who were mutilated for us in the struggle were forgotten. I hope that it is not true. But what we want to do is to organise the pressure of public opinion. Public opinion is on our side in this question. I will not go into the question of Scotland. I will limit myself to this observation. As I understand the figures given by my right hon. Friend 1,200 local authorities have come on and 1,500 have not. That is, the figure is on the wrong side. Whatever the excuse, and I do not think that there can be any valid excuse, for a private firm, there can be no excuse for a public authority not having five per cent. of disabled men among its employés.
This work really wants what has now become the custom of great British firms, a publicity agent, by which I mean that the Government and the National Council ought to bring the merits of this scheme before the attention of everybody in the country. I am afraid that, they are not sufficiently known. I am sure that this National Council, especially under the leadership of such a great soldier as Lord Haig, will enormously help in the work. Personally, I should not be satisfied until there was generated everywhere such a force of public opinion as would compel even the meanest local authority in the country to fall in with the scheme. Before sitting down, I wish to pay my tribute to Mr. Rothband for his indefatigable exertion, and the spending of his time, in furthering this principle for the invention and advance of which sufficient recognition has not yet been given him.

Mr. TURNER: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
I do not mean that my right hon. Friend-should lose £100, but this is the only way of getting at him in connection with the observations which he has been making this afternoon. I agree cordially with the last speaker's remarks about the King's Roll—that it is our business to look after the disabled men and to provide them with the useful work that they can do. At times there are technical difficulties in the way of providing work for the 5 per cent. The percentage, however, is 2½ per cent. where there is a proportion of women employed. In the textile trade we were discussing this
question at our last Industrial Council meeting. We have the case of an employer who employs 100 women and only two men. To make room for the 5 per cent. of disabled men is a difficult proposition. This firm is not on the Roll because it cannot provide work for a disabled man, apart from the two physically fit men that are necessary. But the willingness is there, and we shall find a way out of the difficulty. I have strong faith in Industrial Councils, but not on the lines advocated by the previous Minister of Labour (Dr. Macnamara), who said it was a question of uniting the interests of the employers and the employed. Industrial Councils are for the purpose of composing differences respecting wages and hours of labour. You cannot get unity of feeling between the buyer and the seller of labour under our present system.
Unemployment is, of course, one of the evils arising from our industrial system. I have been an employé for about 50 years. I was never employed for love or brotherhood or friendship; I was employed as a wage-earner, and when there was no profit to be made from my labour I became one of the unemployed. There is a fundamental difference between that experience and what the late Minister of Labour said in reference to the position of the toilers. The Act of Parliament with which we are dealing has within it the spirit of common humanity, but the administration of the Act sometimes lacks the human touch which is desirable. Everybody is to be suspected; every person who signs the roll of unemployed is to be suspected of trying to twist and dodge the regulations of the Ministry. The 5 per cent. of people in this world who are wrong get well looked after, but the 95 per cent. who are right—thank God most people in the world are right—are dealt with as if they were amongst the wrong ones. The policy of the Ministry ought to be reversed. The Minister of Labour has told us that the Committees are very fine Committees. There are very good and very indifferent Committees. I know that they are composed as to half of employers and as to half of employed, with an alleged neutral Chairman, but they work upon instructions from London to a large degree, and the instructions are so cast-iron or so
soulless that during the past year many of the Committees have been disheartened and some have struck against the regulations issued by the Ministry.
One of the evils still existing is the continuation of the "gap." A person has to live 52 weeks in a year, and it is wrong to attempt to put the "gap" into operation. The "gap" moans that for so many weeks the unemployed person must remain with no wage, no compensation, and nothing with which to obtain food. One of two things must then happen. He must go to the board of guardians, which already has enough burdens on its shoulders, or he must tighten his belt and swear. It is all right for a man to tighten his belt, but you ought not to tighten a child's stomach for a fortnight. The principle of paying unemployment pay for 46 weeks in the year ought not to be followed so strictly. Payment ought to be made during the whole of the 52 weeks. The money paid for old age pensions, ex-service men's pensions and unemployment benefit is money that is spent in this country. It is far more usefully spent than much of the money paid to people who have a superabundance. It enables the shopkeeper to know that there is ready money available, and it enables the recipients to know that there is something coming in to supply some of the bare necessaries of life. The "gap" should be abolished; it is already a very difficult scheme for the committees to carry out.
The next point relates to uncovenanted benefit. Here, again, there ought to be no limitation, for an unemployed man wants to live 52 weeks a year. One of the evils of uncovenanted benefit applies to young folks. I know that the Minister will say that it starts now at 25. You are going to have a new age for uncovenanted benefit, one section above 25 and one under 25. When a man has a growing family between the ages of 16 and 21 years he requires all the assistance possible, and the uncovenanted benefit restrictions should go by the board. Then there is the training of women. A paragraph in the estimate says: "Training trainees. Women officer's salary, £250." There were, in February, 240,000 women unemployed. It is said that we are reducing our numbers of unemployed week by week at the rate of 21,000 per week, or thereabouts. At Brighouse there were 500 women unemployed cotton
and silk workers last week, and in the Batley, Morley and Ossett area the reduction in numbers has been very slight indeed. What is to be done to meet the cases of these 240,000 unemployed women. Some will say, "Let them go into domestic service." Domestic service is not suitable for all women, nor for all men. You can make some men grooms, though they would make better parsons, and you can make some women enter domestic service, but you ought not to drive them away from their homes. There are scores of these women who have to look after widowed mothers, ailing sisters or aged people in their homes.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was talking yesterday about the training of women. It was said that there were 50,000 women who ought to be trained. In what? In domestic work, home work, and dressmaking. Yet to-day the Minister proposes, not to increase the amount of training, but to decrease the chances for these people. These women are to be the mothers of future citizens of the Empire, and there ought to be generosity shown to them. Another startling reduction in the Estimates relates to the International Labour Office of the League of Nations. The British Government has been responsible to a large extent for proposing that reduction. Of all the offices of the League of Nations the International Labour Office is the best. It has been the most useful of all, and to reduce the expenditure is to do the wrong thing. The Minister of Labour told us that the staffs under the Ministry were first class—at Headquarters, in the Divisional Offices and at the Employment Exchanges. There are far too many round pegs in square holes at the Exchanges. I would suggest to members of the staff that people on the outside of the counter are in difficulties and are deserving of help, and that many times those who are on the inside of the counter could show more sympathy and human feeling.
The next subject I would mention is the work of the Trade Boards. The Ministry has been far from helpful in connection with the extension of Trade Boards and the carrying into effect of the purpose of Trade Boards. There have been decisions arrived at by Trade Boards, signed and agreed to by both sides, and when they have been sent to the Ministry they have
been turned back because it was said that the rates of wages agreed to were too high. It is no part of the business of the Ministry to interfere with Trade boards in fixing the rate of wages. The members of the Boards know what a trade can afford to pay. In the waste trade, when we arrived at an agreement as to wages, the Ministry of Labour sent it back with a suggestion that there should be a reduction. There has been a Scottish test case in Edinburgh. For a long time someone in Edinburgh has been reported to the Ministry for not paying the proper rate of wages. The inspector reported on the matter. The union concerned had to bring a civil action and the Sheriff indicated that the people were entitled to the money. They, therefore, won their case. I know that the Minister will tell me that a case was tried in Glasgow and that the Sheriff decided the other way. It shows how the law can be interpreted differently by different folk. In the Glasgow case they forgot Clause 5 or Regulation 5, dealing with hours of labour, and when the case comes before the Court of Appeal I think the Sheriff will find he has overlooked this particular Clause in the Glasgow case.
If the Ministry of Labour knew that this firm was not paying the proper rate of wages, it was their business to take action according to the Trade Board law, and not to wait for the union to summon the firm in the civil courts. What has occurred during the past 12 months, in this respect, is a tribute to the organised attack which is being made upon the Trade Boards. The Ministry has been afraid of the attack upon the Trade Boards. They have trembled because the Federation of British Industries has been turning its attention to the Trade Boards, and because there have been attacks by drapers' associations and grocers' associations, and so forth, on the Trade Boards. The Ministry has bent to the storm. I appeal to them to carry out the law and to extend the Trade Boards. There is more sweated labour to-day than there was five, 10 or 15 years ago, and the Trade Boards were established to abolish sweating. The Ministry should extend the Trade Boards, and increase the inspectorate. It should also have a more dominating and a more law-abiding person at the head of the Ministry than the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Labour.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I wish to refer, in particular, to the subject of the Kings Boll, and I speak as Chairman of the Select Committee which sat last year, and as Vice-Chairman of the National Council which came into operation the month before last. I hope at a later period of the Session there will be another opportunity of raising this matter when I can make a more accurate and detailed statement as regards the progress of the new scheme. The Select Committee to which I referred reported last August that the old King's Roll scheme was, in our opinion, going down the hill. We ascribed that very largely to ignorance of the existence of the scheme in many parts of the country, and to the fact that the local authorities did not realise the necessity for furnishing employment to disabled men, and did not understand that it was on their shoulders, more than on any other shoulders, to deal with the problem in their own localities. We have recommended very strongly that the whole responsibility of dealing with the problem should devolve on the local authorities and on the King's Boll committees set up locally. We think by that means, and with the assistance of the National Council, a central body which will administer the scheme generally, we can give the King's Roll publicity and give it a fresh impetus.
I hoped last year that the new scheme would come into operation towards the end of the year, but, owing to the General Election, it had to be postponed and did not come into operation until this year. It was on 20th February that the first meeting of the National Council took place. We have had very satisfactory results from the first two months' work, but we have been up against very great difficulties. We did not know at the commencement the task we were undertaking, and the localities at the commencement did not know the task they were undertaking. There had been no registration of unemployed disabled men, and the first thing we had to do was to find out how many men were to be dealt with and the various categories into which they were divided, from those who were lightly disabled and who could go into industry and those who had such a high physical or occupational disability that they could not be absorbed into industry at all. We are beginning to get
returns from the local authorities, and at any rate we are getting to know what are the dimensions of the task.
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) remarked just now on the necessity for publicity. We on the National Council are trying to tackle the Press, also the cinemas and the theatres throughout the country, with the object of achieving publicity, but as a matter of fact it is the localities themselves that can best deal with the matter. I wish the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had been present at a meeting convened by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool which I addressed on last Friday week. He would there have seen demonstrated the ideal way of tackling the problem. Liverpool has said that it means to solve its own problem, and it is rapidly solving it already. The Lord Mayor is very keen on the project, while the Chairman of the local King's Roll Committee is also extremely able, and his brain has been very fertile in devising ways and means of doing this work. A second Committee has been set up to see that the King's Boll Committee is doing its work. They have employers going round the various firms and business concerns who are not on the Roll, and asking them the reason, and there is no excuse for anybody in that locality not being on the Roll. Liverpool means to deal with the difficulty: the people there have put their backs into it, and I think is already on a fair way to being done.
I do not say that Liverpool is the only locality in which efforts are being made. We on the National Council decided that, it would be too big a task to take up all the local authorities, and to try to help them all together. So we decided to concentrate first on certain big municipalities, and to give them all the assistance we could. We have done so, and we are carefully watching the results. I do not want to say much, because we are only at the start, but I believe myself, if we carry on on the lines which we are adopting at present, we shall in time get over the difficulties, if not in all, at any rat, in the majority of cases. I appeal to Members of Parliament for their assistance. I took the opportunity of sending out circulars first to 70 Members during the month before last, and last month to 50 Members, inviting them to a
meeting to tell them what is being done, and to ask for their assistance; to explain the whole sceme and get them to put their backs into it with their own King's Roll Committees.
In every one of the constituencies whose Members received these circulars, a King's Roll Committee has been established and is functioning well. I did not, however, get much response. Of the 70 Members, only 12, and of the 50 Members only four, turned up to hear what is being done. I appeal to hon. Members of all parties to support this scheme, because, after all, it is no party matter. We want to see the disabled men are employed, and I invite to our next meeting hon. Members on all sides of the House, not only to listen to what is being said, but to take part themselves in the proceedings, because we want ideas from them; we want to be cross-examined and to get every help possible. I conclude by mentioning that we have had the greatest possible assistance from the Minister of Labour ever since the National Council was established, and if the same relationship continues to exist between the National Council and the right hon. Gentleman, I believe it will go far to help a complete solution of the problem.

Mr. J. ROBERTSON: Without going into the general question raised on this Vote, I take the opportunity of drawing attention to some serious disabilities under which unemployed miners, especially in the West of Scotland, are suffering. Trade may be very good in the East of Scotland, but it is very bad in the West. Unemployed miners in the West of Scotland are told that they can find employment in the East of Scotland. That means, in some instances, men going 50 or 60 miles away, and their benefit is immediately stopped. These men cannot remove their homes that distance, and it is almost impossible for them to find lodgings. Even if they do find lodgings, they must work several weeks—in the case of coal hewers especially—before they can earn full wages, and it takes a man all that time to secure sufficient money to pay for his lodgings, wherever he is employed. There is another point in connection with these men. In the minds of those who are unacquainted with coal milling, if there is a vacancy of any kind in a coal mine, an unemployed man is treated as though he could fill that
vacancy irrespective of what particular kind of occupation he happen:, to be in. Those who have some knowledge of mining are aware that there is a great difference between the various occupations. There are occupations such as that of a haulier, and a man may be a very good and willing miner and yet be unable to fit into that particular work. There are over 30 distinct occupations in coal mining.
I ask the Minister to consider these hardships. First, there is the fact of unemployed miners having to go a long distance to find employment, and having their benefit stopped. Even if they do find employment, and with the best, will in the world, are only able to earn half wages, it takes it all to pay for their board and lodging—yet their benefit ceases. The other point which I have indicated is the treatment of every man who goes underground, as if he were able to fill every occupation in the mine from handling an engine to driving a pony. These are matters which I think only require to be investigated in order to be put right, and I hope these serious grievances will be removed. I may be told that individuals in that position have the opportunity of an appeal, but that does not meet the case, because the very same objection arises, that while they are appealing and the appeal is going through, the women and children are starving. I hope that this point of view which I have put forward, with regard not to a few men, but to a very large number of men, will be taken into consideration, because great hardship, a great deal of unrest, and a great deal of bad feeling in connection with the working of the Mining Department in the West of Scotland are created.

Mr. JARRETT: I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Labour, to whose statement in introducing the Estimates I listened with very great interest, one or two points in connection with a matter which has already been touched upon, namely, the question of the ex-service men, and then I want to make one or two suggestions which I hope my right hon. Friend will not think me impertinent in making. In the first place, I wish to ask whether certain information that I have had with reference to men who have been trained under the Ministry of Labour scheme is correct. I accept, of course,
the figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave of the number of men who have been trained who are actually in receipt of unemployment relief at the moment, but I gather that there is a very high percentage of the men who have been trained who, although they are in employment, are not at work in the particular industry for which they were trained. I hope the figure which has been given me, that it is as high as between 60 and 70 per cent., is grossly exaggerated, and I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman to that effect, because it will remove a very grave source of anxiety if he will make it clear that those figures are exaggerated.
The whole question of the training of the ex-service men has been complicated very largely, I understand, by difficulties that arose a year or two ago in connection with a definite promise that was made by the Minister of Labour in those days to train, not merely disabled ex-service men, but I understand that there were roughly about 50,000 young, unskilled, fit men who had served, and who, it had been suggested, should be trained for the building industry. I think it is within the knowledge of everybody in this House that the reason why that promise was not carried out was because of obstacles placed in the way of the training of these men by the various representatives of the trade unions concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] I am not making any accusation at all in this matter. All I know is that it was a definite promise that these men should be trained, that obstacles were eventually placed in the way, and that they were not trained. Whether the trade unions concerned had good reasons for the obstacles they put in the way is not for me to argue now. At the present time we have got those 50,000 men, unskilled, fit men, and there is great danger, when work becomes more normal again, as we hope it will—and the sooner the better—that those men will flood the unskilled market. On the other hand, we have just passed in this House the Second Reading of a Measure which most of us hope is going to expedite the building of houses in this country, and there are one or two reasons given why that Measure is not going to have the effect that some of us desire as early as we desire, and one is a potential shortage of skilled labour in the building
trade. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the negotiations with the trade unions that broke down a year or two ago when this subject was first mooted might be reopened, in view of the passage of the Second Reading of that Housing Bill? I think possibly they might be reopened with rather greater success than attended the negotiations that took place before.
There is one other question which I wish to address to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the ex-service men, and that is that, as is well known, in regard to every scheme of work that is indulged in under the Unemployment Grants Committee or under the Ministry of Transport, there is a Clause that 75 per cent. of the men employed shall be ex-service men. There is another kind of work which it is hoped that Measures passed in this House will stimulate, and that is work and contracts under the Trade Facilities Act, and I understand there is an objection on the part of the Ministry to including that Clause that a certain proportion of ex-service men shall be engaged, the reason given being that it would be interfering with private contracts to suggest the insertion of that Clause. I am not going to suggest for one moment that 75 per cent. of ex-service men in these particular contracts is a right figure, but I ask that at any rate a condition should be laid down, when the Government are guaranteeing capital and interest for work under the Trade Facilities Act, that at least a certain proportion of men employed should be ex-service men, and I should like to suggest that we should get the 75 per cent. where unskilled labour is concerned. I think the argument that the Government cannot lay down this condition because it would be interfering with private contracts is rather, if I may say so, a weak one, because the very fact that you are guaranteeing capital and interest for these schemes suggests some kind of interference with private contracts. Surely this money is not guaranteed by His Majesty's Government without laying down any conditions at all, and therefore, when you are laying down conditions, I suggest that further consideration might be given to the appeal, that has frequently been made to the right hon. Gentleman, that a proportion of the men employed should be ex-service men.
I was very glad to hear the tribute that was paid by the right hon. Gentleman to
the officers and staffs in his Ministry, and I would like to touch upon that point very briefly. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of a happening—whether it is regular or not, I am not sure; I am merely putting out the suggestion, because I think it is worth inquiring into—that takes place with reference to the pay of a large number of temporary or casual clerks employed in the Ministry of Labour, the great majority of whom are ex-service men. I have it on excellent authority—whether the Minister is aware of it or not, I do not know, but I can hardly feel that he can be, because otherwise he would not tolerate it for one moment—that the procedure is that these men are engaged and paid, not upon the Treasury scale, but upon what is known as the Departmental scale, and they are paid a salary, roughly, of about £3 a week. In their agreement it is stated that they will receive augmentations of that salary at the rate of 2s. 6d. a week for three years, but I understand that before the time arrives when their half-crown weekly increase shall come into effect, they get a new agreement signed, which varies that, and which, instead of increasing their salary, lowers it, and they are told that if they do not sign that new agreement and take a lower salary instead of the higher salary to which they are entitled under their original agreement, then the Clause in the original agreement, which enables the Ministry to get rid of them at a week's notice, will be brought into effect. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman will investigate that matter, it is one that he will only have the very greatest pleasure in putting right, because I am sure that when it is brought to his knowledge, as it has been by me this afternoon, it is something which is so nearly verging on a scandal that he will be only too glad to get it remedied.
There is one other matter upon which I wish to touch, and which, I think, is sufficiently important for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to continue the investigations they have already started. I want to deal very briefly with the question of the future policy of the Ministry, and I am prompted to that by the news that we have had lately, which makes us rather wonder whether the seat of arbitration in industrial disputes has been removed from Montagu House to Eccleston Square.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: So it should be.

Mr. JARRETT: Probably the hon. Gentleman says what he hopes will one day come true, but others have other opinions, and it, is rather foolish to prophesy, so I will not follow the hon. Member into that field at all. We, of course, realise that those two instances were exceptions and not the rule. We hope the excellent work which is being carried on by the industrial court of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry will be increased, and that they will keep rather a tighter hold on it.

Sir M. BARLOW: One of the instances to which the hon. Member is referring relates to a matter under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. JARRETT: That is true, and therefore, if my gentle tilt hits the Minister of Agriculture as well, I hope the lesson will be a double one. I want to emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) put forward with reference to schemes to allow for a continuity of employment in future, that possibly now is the time when the right hon. Gentleman can get busy, and the other is on that question of the permanent policy of insurance. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody that the one great spectre that sits on the shoulders of the workers of the country is that awful and ever constant fear of unemployment. It is the thing that leads to more troubles, discontent, and anxiety than anything else—the feeling in the mind of the worker, even when he is in good employment, that he never knows from one day to the next when he is going to get his ticket, and the still worse feeling of the wife left at home who never knows from one day to the next when he is coming home to say that he has lost his job. We have given a lead in unemployment insurance. I think, considering the time when the Unemployment Insurance Act was brought into being and the almost immediate slump after the additional 9,000,000 or 10,000,000 were put on, that is something of which the country may well be proud, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to his predecessor for the way in which he laid the foundation of the building we now see. I
do not press for a reply now, but I think the time is coming when we shall have to place this question of unemployment insurance on a much wider basis than that on which it is at the present time. I suggest that we have arrived at a time in our industrial development when we ought to be able to say to industry, "You have no right to use a man merely when you want him for the purpose of making a profit and then when his profit-making capacity is weakened, or you can no longer employ him, simply throw him on the scrap-heap for the State to do the best they can for him." I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that anybody who is in public life comes into it with one main idea. It may not be their only idea, but it is their main idea to try to make things a little better, and I think probably the great difference between hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and others of us is one rather of method than of ultimate object. I suggest that industry under the capitalist system can be responsible for its own unemployed and those who have given good service and who later are unfit or too old to work any longer.
I think the right hon. Gentleman might follow up on the lines of the Departmental Report issued by his Department, a few days ago and explore fully the possibility of industry being responsible for its own unemployed. I personally think it is a responsibility that industry should take, and I am sure it would be a field of exploration which would be quite worth going into on a very large scale. There are difficulties which have been thrown up by hon. Members above the Gangway, the National Council of the Labour Party Conference and the Trade Union Congress, mainly obstacles on questions of detail and not at all on questions of principle, obstacles such as the difficulty in the question of demarcation. I suggest the question is one which affects everybody in the country to such an extent that it is up to the Government to do all it call to explore the possibilities of that, and I would like to press on the right hon. Gentleman with all the force I have, that relieving the dread of unemployment from the lives of the workers of the country is a task to which he could set himself with all the ability he possesses.

Major COHEN: I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken
on one point and to press the Government to reconsider whether they cannot make it a condition of their guarantee to private firms that a certain number of ex-service men be employed. I know he has given that very considerable attention and that he can put forward good arguments against it. He may say there are not enough ex-service men in the vicinity or that they are not sufficiently skilled. That may be so in certain cases, but I do not think it is so in the majority of cases. If the work is at all large and the firm is going to employ any number of men, it seems to me extremely unlikely that there will not be sufficient ex-service men where that work is to be performed. If we are going to guarantee we ought to have some say in the matter. I should like to go back to the King's Roll. I feel rather like the grandfather of the King's Roll National Committee, because it was Owing to an Amendment of mine to a Motion in this House that the Select Committee was set up, and it was due to the findings of that Committee that the King's Roll National Council was formed. When I pressed for the Committee I thought the voluntary system had failed, and, indeed, to my mind, it had failed then. I had no doubt that the only way in which we could absorb the large number of men unemployed was to adopt some system of compulsion. We had the Committee and published a full report. We went abroad to many countries in Europe, where we found they had more or less some form of compulsion, or that future legislation was expected. It was also brought home to the Committee that these systems had not been tested in any particular way owing to so little unemployment in many countries. We examined witnesses here, and, I think, came to the conclusion that, while compulsion would be possible, it was undesirable and against the whole ideas of this country. We are not accustomed to compulsion and do not like it. The alternative was to revive the King's Roll under different conditions. Personally, I really feel satisfied that we have made some considerable progress with the voluntary system since this was revived. We have got it taken up by county committees and towns, and I think we have revived a certain spirit of competition. We have made Liverpool take it up if only with the idea of heating Manchester, and
Manchester will retaliate with the same idea. The problem should be solved voluntarily. The number of men outstanding, who are unemployed, in the various cities is comparatively small, and if the different firms in the different cities will only undertake it zealously, as I think they are doing, I think we shall achieve something very great.
There is one thing of which I am doubtful, and that is what security of tenure is given to these men. We must not be satisfied with getting all these men absorbed and then let the different committees rest on their oars. I am certain that some of these men would lose their jobs within two or three weeks, probably through no fault of their own. The problem is more than an immediate one. It is going on for all time, and I do urge on the public to realise that this must be the last attempt at doing it voluntarily. The War has been over for a number of years now, but these men are still unemployed. If it can be done voluntarily it must be done, but I do not think we want to forget that in time of war a man was compelled to serve the country, and in time of peace the country must be compelled to look after the man.

Mr. LANSBURY: The breezy optimism of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Barlow) reminds me very much of Mr. John Burns when he stood there representing the Local Government Board, as it then was. When I sit in this House and listen to discussions on unemployment and things connected with it I feel like an Alice in Wonderland, quite bewildered, and do not understand, because to listen both to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) one would imagine that things were going on very well, thank you, and that there was not anything to worry about. There are 1,200,000 persons registered, I understand, but the Minister knows quite well that those figures are perfectly fallacious, and do not bear relation to actual fact. A vast number of people get tired of registering, and when the gap comes do not register at all. There are also a large number of women who do not come on the roll. As to the men, all those young men you lump back on to their parents do not register, and I believe it would be true to say that
some hundreds of thousands more are unemployed than those put down in the official figures.
I want incidentally to say one or two words on the King's Roll question. There is nobody in the country who does not want to do the right thing by the man who served in the War, but I want everybody to understand that there are a large number of men who were not able to serve in the last War for a variety of reasons. I come from a district where men were positively refused permission to join the Army. They were told they were serving the country as well in repairing ships and carrying on transport as if engaged in actual fighting. Lord Haig and Lord Jellicoe, Sir Douglas Haig and Admiral Jellicoe as they were then, sent home letters telling the men that those who were serving at home were assisting the work of carrying the War to a successful conclusion. We have a multitude of these men on our hands now, and although the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport, and the people who govern the grants, give us permission to have 50 and 50 instead of 75 and 25, I want to point out that there are similar men everywhere who have a clear indefeasible right to share in whatever work is going on at such a period as this.
With regard to disabled men, I agree that while the Government does not make provision for them all of us ought to do our best to try to get them such work as is suitable, but I deny absolutely that that is the right method of dealing with the problem. I think it is a disgrace to this House that any disabled man should be in want of anything. I think we ought to give them full adequate maintenance for wives and children until such time as every able-bodied man is absorbed. I think the able-bodied ex-service men and the able-bodied population generally should cheerfully bear the burden of keeping the disabled men out of the labour market until there is room for them to be absorbed. I put that view to my constituents, and that was my answer to the British Legion when they put the question to me. That is my position and it should be the position of every man who is a friend of the ex-service man in this country. I think it is a disgrace to go running around to put the one-armed, one-legged, and diseased man into work when you have a multitude of
able-bodied men out of work. Let the able-bodied people keep those who are less able-bodied. Do not make any mistake. I am not asking that they should be maintained if they desire otherwise, or that they shall do nothing. Go on training them, spend money on that, keep them in health and in good condition, and develop their capacities to earn their own living when there is room for them in the labour market.
I want to say that, and I want to say this further about the King's Roll. I know one local authority—and in this I give way to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell, though it seems to be in my recollection that we, the Poplar Council, sent a reply that we were really employing more of this class of men than we were required to do, but that we objected to go on the Roll because we did not want to play up to the snobbery which was involved in the matter. We did not want to advertise as a virtue what we thought was only our duty. We have got to do what we are doing until the nation does its duty by these men, and if the House really means what we all say we mean in regard to sympathy and gratitude to these men, and to the men disabled in the War, we should cheerfully maintain them and not want to push them out to work in the way we are doing now. That is what I wanted to say on that point.
There are two or three other things I should like to say as briefly as consistent with clearness. I want first to congratulate the Minister on telling us what fine people the civil servants of this country are. We agree, and we suggest that that is a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea and others who say that when men work for the State they will not do their duty. The British civil servant is a standing denial of the truth of that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I have had experience of civil servants in several branches, and although we very often disagree, because they are not Socialists and I am, yet I venture to say that wherever there is a piece of work to be done that these men are the men to help to do it, and to help to do it in a perfectly public spirited manner.
I come next to the question of women labour. I understand that we cannot
discuss anything that needs legislation, but I am going to point out to my right hon. Friend the way I think his Department has failed in regard to this aspect of the unemployed, especially with regard to women. There are a quarter of a million women out of work with practically no provision being made for them; what provision is made is of so paltry a character that it really does not affect the problem at all. I believe that in every district of London, and outside London, that it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had allowed us to re-establish the Central London Unemployed Body's local unemployed committee, especially to deal with the women. We could have provided good training centres, and the local authorities would have been quite willing to assist in carrying on these centres, and this instead of allowing the women just to take the dole—I cannot help calling it a dole, though it is a cant sort of word—to accept the small allowance for doing nothing. It is just as bad for young women to get money for nothing as it is for young men. It is just as demoralising, but because of the prejudice put up against the Unemployed Workmen's Act, that Act, which is permissive, has never been put into operation, and you will not get the women's question dealt with effectively at all until you put that Act into operation, and in the big towns establish these centres by which women may be taught not only domestic service, but to do other work as well.
It has, I know, been said that it will cost a lot of money to start people to work. It does, and the things that were sometimes produced could not be got rid of economically. Even so, even at the risk of a big expenditure of public money, it would be worth while for the Minister to consider whether we should not put into operation the Unemployed Workmen's Act specifically to deal with the women. I want also to say a word about the young men. I repeat what I said one morning last session about 5.30 in the morning to the Minister, that to me it is a most terrible thing to see during these last few years frightful demoralisation of young people, especially of young men. This is going on to an alarming extent, and nothing is being done that I can see to arrest it. If the Minister would think about it he would possibly provide
centres from where these young men could be put on the land, where they could at least have their physique and morale kept in being instead of being allowed to waste as it is at present. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what I mean in this respect, and I would beg him in consultation with the Minister of Health even now to consider whether it would not be worth while to try to get large numbers of these young men out of the towns to training centres. I am opposed to emigration, thoroughly opposed to it, but if the majority of this House are going to emigrate men I am certain that we could not do better than take these young men and give them a training in the country.
The other thing I want to speak of is the question of the boys and girls. The Minister very carefully did not tell us what had been done for the East End of London. I think we have got one trumpery centre set up, and it is doing very little. There are great masses of boys and girls—you have no figures about them—none of us can tell how many there are, whether 100,000 or a million—but we do know there is a tremendous number. I wonder whether this House realises what is being done in this matter with these boys and girls just leaving school? They are glad to get out of the wretched homes they live in, and to get into the streets, where they learn all kinds of evil. Every magistrate in London can tell us that the result of these boys and girls not being able to get into an occupation is leading to an increase in what is called juvenile crime—it is not crime at all, because no one at these ages can, in my judgment, be guilty of crime. I want to put it to the Minister of Labour that if, and when, you do establish centres the reason you do not get the children tumbling into these centres and the parents forcing them in is because we have done what we so often do—we expect more from the working-class father and mother than we expect from ourselves. We expect the working-class mother, with boys of 14½ and 15—the boy who is pushing his arms through his coat and his long legs through his trousers, and wants more to eat than ever he did before—I say we expect that this mother, on the same wages as she has so far received, will be able to maintain that boy and to keep him at a kind of continuation school.
The mother cannot do anything of the kind. She is glad for the boy to go out and earn 6d. here and 1s. here, picking up any odd job, maybe, rather than going to the centre. It would pay the State, I think, to spend a few millions a year maintaining these boys and girls in school and giving them full maintenance while there in order to preserve their morale.
I live, as many other Members around me do, and probably some on the opposite side, right in the centre of an industrial district in East London. I have lived there practically all my life, except for a few brief periods, and what I see going on now makes me almost despair of the future. My friends think that I am an incurable optimist, but when I face these boys and girls, it takes the heart out of me to see them day by day; and I want, therefore, to appeal to the Minister whether he will not badger and bully the Treasury till they do let him have some money. Let us do something or the other to get money to arrest the deterioration of these children and also to arrest the deterioration that is going on with the young men and young women. A lot more could be said about this Vote, but I want to say in conclusion that I am against insurance by industry, and against insurance as a remedy for unemployment altogether. I think that to pay a man 12s., 15s., or £1 a week, or whatever sum you can insure him for, is not sufficient. When I was out of work for 12 weeks in Australia I wanted as much to keep myself, my wife and children; the landlord wanted as much rent as before. You go on the assumption that when a man is out of work his wife and children can be maintained on less. The only way to cure unemployment is by work. When you have got work for everybody, then, and not till then, ought you to send the disabled men out into the labour market.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I am glad to join with previous speakers in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on his speech, but particularly because of the fact that he did not devote any time to justify the existence of his Department. I remember when the Ministry was first formed, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was Minister, he met with a good deal of criticism. This was followed
up by a demand for the abolition of the Ministry. When I succeeded him I think I had to devote a good deal of my time in a defence of the Ministry from the standpoint of proving its usefulness to the community. I am still of the opinion I expressed then, that the Ministry of Labour is an absolutely necessary Department of the State. Whatever political or economic system may be evolved, you will still have a need for a Ministry comparable to that of the Ministry of Labour. After all, when we talk about getting rid of unemployment it may fairly be said that everyone wants to eliminate unemployment if it is possible to do it. There is no monopoly in any quarter of the House or any class of the community of sympathy for the unemployed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—or of a desire and intention to explore every possible avenue to solve the problem. But I am certain of this, that it is not within the competence of human beings to establish a society in which there will never be unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Well, I am entitled to my opinion, and, after all, the House of Commons is a deliberating body, and if we allow one another to express our views we will ultimately reach, let us hope, something like agreement. But I do not think it can be controverted that it is not possible or competent for ordinary human beings to so evolve a society that it will definitely ensure that there never will be some unemployment.

Mr. MUIR: Get on with the discussion of the Vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. G. ROBERTS: One should be able to state one's opinion in the House of Commons without interruption. My point is this. In a country like ours we can do a good deal to regularise employment. This House may devise the best measures for the regularisation of industry, resulting in more continuous employment of numbers of our people, but we depend so much on overseas trade that it is utterly impossible for any Government, or any party, to so organise things in other countries as to ensure that there never will be fluctuations of trade involving unemployment in this country. Therefore, in my opinion some scheme of insurance will remain as a partial solution of the unemployment problem. I was glad to observe the
gradual development of the insurance scheme which was started in a tentative fashion based largely on the experience of trade unions and able to improve on the benefits that can be conferred by trade unions. Nevertheless we were able to support them with greater certainty for the future by drawing on the experience of these great organisations. That scheme has now been developed to embrace between 10,000,000 and 13,000,000 workers. We all admit that in itself is not adequate to deal with the problem of unemployment, and it was never designed to provide a full living wage for workers when they were unemployed. It was simply meant to be a contribution towards helping them. After all we still rely on the trade unions and other voluntary organisations.
We have gone steadily forward and we have secured such an experience that it has made the way clear for further development. I know there is a great difference of opinion as to the desirablity and practicability of unemployment insurance by industries. When I was at the Ministry of Labour we prosecuted some inquiries on this subject. Naturally we found difficulties in our way, but difficulties exist to be surmounted, and a people who rose superior to the problems of the War can assuredly cope with the difficulties of this problem. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) that there are difficulties which we shall not be able to overcome. There are questions of demarkation as to which industry a worker is really employed in, and therefore any scheme of insurance by industry only gives us the working class encompassed within such scheme. I think we shall have to go back to the expansion and development of the national scheme, leaving the industries to devise measures whereby they can supplement the benefits under the State scheme, and bring us nearer what we all desire, namely, a maintenance wage or a maintenance income when a person is unemployed. In this matter we have to show a little tolerance because no individual has a monopoly of good desire or wisdom. We are all trying to find a solution to this problem.
I want my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to take more advantage of the Joint Industrial Councils that
are in existence. I know some of them have already applied themselves to this problem. The one associated with the trade in which I used to earn an honest living, and the interests of which I still follow very closely, have given a good deal of consideration to this problem, and I believe that they will, ere long, be able to draft a scheme appropriate to that industry which will have a condition whereby the men will remain attached to the national scheme, and out of the industry they will be able to draw supplemental benefit when they are out of work, ensuring them sufficient income to maintain themselves in a state of decency and comfort. The Industrial Councils were established in a period of great difficulty, and it was expected that employers and trade unions were going to work in closer harmony than has been the case. Some of us are disappointed, but I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, who declare that that is no identity of interest between employers and employed, to bear with me just a moment. At any rate you have these two classes in existence, and you are not going to get rid of them this year or next year.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I know you are not; that is your game.

Mr. ROBERTS: I am not playing any game. I am elected by my constituents, and I have as much right to speak on this question as the hon. Member who has interrupted me. I suggest that there is an identity of interest. I agree there is no possibility of absolutely reconciling the interests of these two sections of the people; but the prosperity of an industry is of vital concern to both. If an industry is not prosperous there cannot be any certainty of employment, and there cannot be good wages going into working class homes. Why cannot we work together for the purpose of rehabilitating the employment of our country and making employment more secure? I think we ought to do our best to put an end to this class war, which has brought so much misery and hardship into the lives of our people during the last four or five years.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he makes out that guaranteed prosperity for employers always brings a share of that prosperity to the workers?

Mr. ROBERTS: I claim that the workers have a right to insist upon having a fair share of any prosperity.

Mr. NEWBOLD: The whole share.

Mr. ROBERTS: In times of dispute when the two parties are brought together they very soon realise that there is an identity of interest, and they join together repeatedly in making demands on Government Departments, thereby showing that they both recognise this principle. If I cared to occupy the time of the House I could quote extracts from speeches on this point made by members of the Labour party.

Mr. J. JONES: And by yourself!

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, and from speeches made by myself. Do hon. Members contend that it is the policy of the Labour party to destroy the scheme of joint industrial councils?

Mr. JONES: No!

Mr. ROBERTS: Then you are divided on that point, but even if you are divided amongst yourselves you should at least be willing to listen to what I have to say on this point. I want to adduce one reason more why the scheme of joint industrial councils deserves the support of my hon. Friends opposite. As they have made clear to-day, it is their desire to supersede the capitalist system. If you are going to create a system to take the place of the capitalist, who admittedly to-day knows his own business—

Mr. NEWBOLD: He gets you to do it for him.

Mr. ROBERTS: If he does not know his business then he ought to be a very easy prey for the hon. Members opposite. The workers need to be trained if they are to be able to conduct business on the capitalist system, moreover, you cannot act with full knowledge unless you are acquainted with the facts and affairs of industry. We have never contemplated joint industrial councils merely as a medium for adjusting wages and hours. They were designed to make the workers acquainted with the facts and circumstances of industry so that they would be better able to appraise the actions of their employers, and when they might be called upon to control and administer those large industries they would be
better equipped for it because of the experience they had just derived. I want to ask my right hon. Friend what is being done with respect to Trade Boards. I share the view that there has been a tendency to discourage rather than encourage the extension of Trade Boards. I am of opinion that there is still a great necessity for them because there is much underpaid labour in the country. There is still a great deal of disorganisation, and just as I am in favour of joint industrial councils for well organised industries, I desire to see Trade Boards in operation wherever the state of organisation is not sufficiently strong to give the worker an effective means of standing on equal terms in negotiations with his employer. To discuss that at length would bring one up against the recommendations of the Cave Committee which would involve legislation, and, therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend in his reply to state what is the policy of the Ministry of Labour in respect to Trade Boards, and to tell us whether they recognise these Boards as an integral part of industrial reorganisation.

Sir M. BARLOW: I have answered this and questions of a similar kind three times. I am going to introduce a Bill dealing with this question.

Mr. ROBERTS: I want to ask a question with regard to the expenditure under the International Labour Organisation. The sums which appear on the Estimates are not subject to Treasury audit, and therefore I presume that hon. Members will find it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively analyse the various items of expenditure. I am certainly not hostile to international organisation, but owing to the secrecy which surrounds this body there is abroad an opinion that extravagant salaries are being paid, and that money is being expended in a way which does not conduce to the elevation of labour conditions in the countries represented. I think the Minister of Labour might very well consider whether there is any method whereby he could take the House into his confidence and inform us what is being done. For instance, questions like these are addressed to me, and I presume are also addressed to my right hon. Friend: How many delegates go from different organisations? How many
trade union representatives go? At I whose expense? How much do they receive? After all, if the House of Commons provides the money, it is entitled to some information as to how the money is expended. I again congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the success and ability with which he is conducting the affairs of his Ministry, and I wish him a long tenure of office.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: For the short time I desire to speak I do not want to follow any of the arguments which have been developed by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) in his very interesting speech. Rather I want to revert to the line of thought which was suggested by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) in the con eluding remarks which he made. I wish to refer for a moment or two to the juvenile educational and recreational centres which were started in the early part of this year. I was concerned to hear the Minister of Labour say yesterday, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for the South Nottingham Division (Lord Cavendish-Bentinck) that these centres were to be finally discontinued on the 21st of July. The establishment of these centres was, in my judgment, a very enlightened piece of administration, and I would like to say, of two centres established in the part of the country from which I come, that they have done very admirable work. I agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley that it is very difficult to say whose lot is most tragic with regard to the question of unemployment. There is the question of the older craftmen, who are faced with the possibility that they may never be employed in their craft again, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the most tragic case of all is that of those who are just leaving school and have no prospect of getting work.
I would like to address the Committee on behalf of those who, in a limited way, are availing themselves of the facilities of these recreational and educational centres. I am one of those who would have urged and believed that it would have been a matter of great national importance to have established and maintained, wherever there is unemployment, a far more comprehensive scheme of education than the comparatively small matter which I am discussing
at the moment. There are in these recreation centres at the present time boys and girls from 14 to 18 years of age. Their lot is particularly serious and doubly hard, for this reason. These are the children who were in the primary schools during the war years. They suffered then owing to the disorganisation which occurred in most districts in our system of primary education. In many cases they were practically half-timers. They were sent from one school to another. They had that initial disadvantage, and now they have the awful fate of leaving school with nothing to go to but the street corner.
I speak with the greatest sympathy, and with some knowledge, of what these young persons are going through, because it so happened that I spent, for 10 years of my life, all the time which was not devoted to earning my living, amongst youths and girls of that age and of that order of occupation. I want to appeal to the Minister to keep in touch closely with these recreational centres. As I say, I know in my own district, from my own observation, that they are doing good work. I would appeal to him not to close them down, but rather to extend them, and widen the scope of their operations. It is true that the number of these young fellows and girls who are unemployed is less now than when these centres were instituted, but I do not think it is possible to believe that the need for these centres will have vanished by the 21st of July. The Minister said yesterday that these centres were established as a means of checking demoralisation during the winter months, but, from my knowledge of this problem, I should hesitate to say that unemployment is more demoralising in the winter than it is in the summer. My view is rather the opposite. We have the long hours of daylight in the summer, and the more time there is for idleness in the open the more demoralisation there is. It seems to me the problem is more serious in the summer than it is in the winter.
If these centres were abandoned, it would be very difficult indeed to reorganise them again. The local authorities have had very great difficulty in organising them, as it is. It has been very difficult to find suitable buildings for them, and it has been more difficult still to find people with the necessary qualifications to act as instructors. It is true
there are teachers, but it is not every teacher who is capable of carrying on centres of this kind, and that is an additional argument for maintaining them. If they are abandoned at the date suggested, we will be adding these teacher's and instructors to the ranks of the unemployed. In conclusion, I would express the hope that the Minister will reconsider the reply which he gave yesterday, keep personally in touch with these centres, consult with the Board of Education to ascertain their views on this matter, and see that these centres are not only continued, but carried on on a broader basis.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would have liked, first of all, to have uttered a word of congratulation from this side of the House, not to the present Minister of Labour, but to an ex-Minister of Labour. I would have liked to have congratulated the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) on the way in which he has acquired the point of view, if not the accent, of Members on the other side of the House. I would have liked to have said a little to him about how much we on this side of the House appreciate the manner in which he is now fulfilling his new role in life. But I will turn aside from this dissertation to congratulate the present Minister on the way in which he has supplied us with an argument for the point of view which we have been expressing from time to time by his statement that the civil servant is so capable an individual, as capable as any of the individuals who are engaged in private enterprise. I only wish that hon. Members opposite, when they cheer the Minister in a condescending way when he congratulates civil servants, would remember how valuable those civil servants are when Members of this House are pointing out how superior private enterprise individuals are to those people in the service of the State. Yet, personally, I am disposed to think that among civil servants there are, just as there is in any other class of the community, good, bad, and indifferent individuals. Personally, I have had a good deal of trouble with the individual who is in control of the Exchange which has to do with the district I represent. I want to put before the Minister a question in this connection. I would like to know what exactly are the powers of a manager of an Exchange. If a rota committee
comes to a certain decision in a case, has the manager the right to take that decision to another rota committee—not to the general local employment committee, but simply to another rota committee—and so on, until he gets a decision which he thinks ought to have been given by the rota committee?
Then I want to say a word in connection with those who have made claims for uncovenanted benefit, and who have been turned down as not genuinely seeking whole-time employment. While my experience is that there has been some improvement in the matter, I still desire to press upon the Minister the necessity for treating this in a very generous manner rather than the reverse. I am afraid that very often the point of view taken is that the individual has to be wiped off unless he can make it very definite that he has been genuinely seeking employment. I think this great Ministry of Labour is in a very large measure responsible for finding employment for the people who are unemployed, and I do not think that too great stress should be put upon the need of an individual supplying, say, documentary evidence. I have a case here in which an individual supplied to the committee more than half-a-dozen references from employers of his endeavour to secure employment, and yet he was turned down as not genuinely seeking whole-time employment. While Members of this House may congratulate the Minister of this great Department of State; while they may point out there are practically none to challenge the necessity for such a great Department of the State; while there have been those who have pointed to the way in which it has been administered so successfully, I want to look at the matter as far as possible from the point of view of the individual who goes to the Exchange—the individual who has been unemployed for a long time, who is disheartened and broken-spirited, and I want it to be realised that such an individual, when he comes before the committee, is not in a position to make out a strong case for himself.
8.0 P.M.
I want the Minister of Labour to make it plain, in every Exchange throughout the country, that the officials and the Committee shall deal in a most generous way with these people. After all, these Acts
of Parliament which are being administered are very complicated. I should not like to give very much for the percentage of marks that any ordinary hon. Member of this Committee would obtain in an examination in regard to them. The Minister ought to make a point of going over the percentages of the people who are having their claims rejected, so that he may be assured that there is a generous administration.
The case I have put before him to-day bears testimony to the fact that there is still a great deal wanting in this respect. I want to deal with another matter in connection with benefit. I have been asked to put this before the Committee to-day. In connection with certain work in Dairy, in Ayrshire, a cable company had engaged several men. The cable did not arrive in time, and the foreman sent the men home. Later in the day, the manager of the company arrived; the cable came; and he was very angry at the work being stopped. In his rage, he went to the Employment Exchange, and said that the men had left their work. Afterwards, he gave up that statement, but these men had to go from Dairy to Kilmarnock, a distance involving a railway fare of about half-a-crown, to attend the Court of Referees. They did not get their railway fare; there was no allowance for it. In the notice sent to the men, it was pointed out that
No expenses can be allowed in respect either of your own attendance at the Court, or of that of your representative.
The notice goes on:
Should it not be possible for any cause to commence the consideration of your case at that sitting, or to complete the consideration thereof if commenced, the case will be referred to a subsequent sitting, of which due notice will be given to you.
This case has been put before me by a man who, by the time he had to appear before the Court of Referees, had found employment. The result was that that man was not only put to the expense of the railway fare, but also to the loss of a day's wages, owing to his having to go from Dairy to Kilmarnock. I think the Minister should look into this matter; that there should be an allowance; and that those people, who can so ill-afford to lose anything, should have their expenses provided, or the loss made good, especially when their appeal is successful, as it was in this case. There is another
point in regard to it. This employer of labour, in a rage, went to the Employment Exchange, and was responsible for the benefit to these unemployed workmen being stopped. After five weeks' time, in spite of the fact that the Court of Referees decided in favour of the individuals, the benefit had not been paid to them. There is here a real weakness in the working and administration of these Acts. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that no employer of labour should have such a hold over his employés as is evidently given to him at the present time as to be able to stop their benefit.

Sir M. BARLOW: I think the hon. Member sent me the particular case in writing. At any rate, I asked him to do so. If he has, I will look into it. Of course, the general issue which he is now raising cannot be dealt with in that way—on his special case.

Mr. STEPHEN: I intend to send it to the Minister, and I will raise the general issue. I think the individual concerned has no doubt that he will get his money ultimately; that is all right. He feels, however, that the position in which he has been placed is one in which many other individuals are placed, and that the general question should be dealt with. It is the general question into which I should like the Minister specially to look.
I want to refer to what has been said to-day about the provision that is being made for women who are unemployed. I do not think the Minister of Labour himself is contented with what is being done at present to make provision for the needs of unemployed women. I urge upon him the necessity for the provision of schemes which will give to those women some hope, and some assurance that the House of Commons is interested in their welfare, and is going to do something to make provision for their needs. In conclusion, I wish to say something with regard to the future policy of the Ministry of Labour, about which we have heard so much to-day, especially in connection with the subject of insurance by industry. I do not think the real solution of the unemployment problem in the future is to be found in any such way. After all, the solution is so to administer the affairs of the country that there will not be unemployment, and so to organise the community that unemployment will be
impossible. I do not believe we shall get anything very good out of this suggestion of insurance by industry.
I do not think we shall arrive at any really great, human way of dealing with the problem along those lines. So long, however, as we have to have these schemes, and to have our State Department administering schemes on behalf of vast multitudes who are unemployed, we ought to be assured that in every home there is security and a certain measure of comfort. While there is insecurity; while there is not a real standard of comfort in those homes, it is useless to condemn talking about class war or class struggles, or to lay emphasis upon it. So long as there are these great disparities in the condition of the people, so long will there be this feeling of ill-will and resentment among the various members of the community. It is not individuals on this side who are responsible for preaching class war, or for the practice of class war. It is those who sit on the opposite benches who have got the power, and who have control of the land and the industries of the country. They are responsible for the practice of the class war and the class struggle, and for the preaching of it.
That is the natural outcome of the organisation of society for which they stand. When you think that a House of Commons can pass a measure that only allows 1s. a week for the child of an unemployed workman, it is absolutely non sense to say that we preach a class struggle, and to lecture us on the matter. It came ill from the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), who tried to talk to us in such sugar-coated honeyed words—it comes ill from any hon Member, who is living in a measure of comfort himself, to talk about people on this side of the House being responsible for the doctrine of the class struggle. It is this "bob a week" business for the children of the unemployed that is responsible for these things. I say to the Minister of Labour that the matter which he ought to take into his most serious consideration at this time is not this business of insurance by industry, but whether he cannot make a more generous provision for the unemployed people and for their dependants, in order that there shall be comfort in the homes of the people.
There has been so much congratulation in the Committee in regard to this Ministry; there have been so many things said about our country giving a world lead in the matter of insurance against unemployment, that I want to put it to the Committee that perhaps there is not so much to boast about in connection with the lead we have given in this matter. I do not believe there is a country in the world to-day where the people are suffering greater privations and hardships than our country. In the constituency I represent there are things that make one's blood boil when one thinks of people having to endure such hardships. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look into this problem of affording a more generous scale, and to wipe out this rotten "bob a week" idea for the children of the workers, believing that the children of the workers are of just as great value to the State as the children of the well-to-do. There is no man in the Committee who would, for a minute, think that anything very much could be done for the children on 1s. a week.
There is no difficulty in regard to the provision of the money. The Attorney-General told us last night that finance was not a difficulty. We have to get decent conditions for our people; a decent standard. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to regard this question from the point of view of the man who is out of work, rather than that of the business man, who says we ought to be very proud; or from that of the right hon. Gentleman for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who is so proud of his handiwork in this connection. I have tried to say a word for these children of the unemployed, and I hope the Minister of Labour is going to make a decent provision for them in the future.

Captain BOWYER: I do not want to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken, except just to say that I think sometimes that hon. Members who sit opposite, and who, when they talk on unemployment, seem to put themselves forward as the only champions—

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Major MOLSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
It is in no factious spirit that we Lincolnshire Members take exception to the West Riding of Yorkshire not confining itself to its own area and its own county, but it is absolutely against the traditions of all local government that the county council of one county should ask for powers to interfere in the area of another county council. I have been asked by the Lindsey County Council very strongly to oppose this Bill on these grounds. Probably all hon. Members who are present in the House to-day have received, within the last couple of days, a paper setting forth the reasons why the promoters wish to bring forward this Bill, and I should like to refer to paragraph 3, which is as follows:—
The provisions of the Bill, other than Part III, are framed substantially on the lines of the Lancashire County Council (Drainage) Act, 1921, and do not raise any new question of principle. Evidence will be given before the Committee on the Bill showing that the need for legislation of the kind is at least as great in the West Riding of Yorkshire as in Lancashire.
I wish to take complete exception to the statement that the other part of this Bill than Part III is on the lines of the Lancashire County Council Drainage Act, 1921. That is absolutely incorrect, because, in the first place, the Lancashire County Council drains direct into the sea, and the West Riding of Yorkshire wishes to drain into parts of Lincolnshire. The second point is that, when the Lancashire County Council promoted their Bill, they had already obtained powers as the one drainage authority throughout the area, whereas at the present time the West Riding is only one of many drainage authorities, and there are 30 petitioners against this Bill. Of those 30 petitioners, six are large towns in their own area, namely, Sheffield, Bradford, Harrogate,
Rotherham, Doncaster and Halifax, and I do think that the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council might settle the affairs of their own house a little more satisfactorily before they begin to interfere in Lincolnshire. If my memory serves me, in the last Parliament the same County Council asked for powers against Bradford, and there was considerable feeling in the matter. If I remember rightly, also, I supported Bradford against the encroachment of the West Riding County Council. It is not a personal matter between ourselves and the promoters of this Bill, but I am speaking entirely on behalf of my constituents against the powers proposed in the Bill.
There is no analogy between the powers of these two Bills. In the case of Lancashire, the drainage is direct into the sea, and no one else is affected, but under this West Riding of Yorkshire Bill they would go into part of my constituency in Lincolnshire, and would affect the drainage of that area very seriously indeed. Before I proceed further I should like to mention the Ouse Drainage Bill, which was brought before this House on Second Reading three years ago. Many Members of the House will realise what a lot of trouble and litigation is arising over the Ouse Drainage Act. It is only necessary to refer to the "Times" of to-day, yesterday, and the day before. The litigation under that Act has become very serious indeed. I will quote one or two points from the "Times" of to-day. In the first place, we were assured that there was no danger from the Measure, but here is what the letter says:
We in the uplands spent over £2,000 in 1920 to get a Clause added to the Act under which we could go to the Courts, prove our contention, and so get relief.
They spent that £2,000, and they certainly have been able to go to the Courts, and there has been a great deal of litigation under the Act since. The letter goes on to say:
We have tested the value of the statement made by the late Minister"—
that is the late Minister of Agriculture—
and reiterated repeatedly, that if there was no benefit there was no payment.
That is very different from what has happened, because, when these people have gone to the Courts, the Ouse Drainage Board had the Act behind them, and they have made no attempt to
prove that the petitioners do not benefit, but have simply answered, "You are within the map, and so you have to pay." My friends who are bringing forward this Bill have spoken to me and have assured me that there is no danger, but I am afraid I am taking none of their soothing syrup. My petitioners in Lincolnshire will not accept the assurance in any kind of way, and should it become an Act they do not see any safety at all in the position they are in. We may pass the Bills, but it is for the lawyers to carry them out, and we have lately had some very bad examples of what has resulted from hasty legislation. The late Minister of Agriculture, when this Bill was before the House, said very distinctly, "No benefit, no pay." But the Ouse drainage authority have been able to bring forward their Act, and the Law Courts have given a decision in their favour.
I come to the most obnoxious point about this Bill from my point of view and that of my constituents. I have been asked by the Lindsey County Council, the Isle of Axholme Rural District Council and the body of the owners and occupiers of the Isle of Axholme—the Isle of Axholme is that portion of Lincolnshire which lies to the west of the River Trent, and it is through that part that the West Riding of Yorkshire send a great deal of the water they propose to bring by means of this Bill. It is reclaimed marsh land and it lies below the level of the Trent at high tides. I should like to read a small part of this petition the owners and occupiers of land in the Isle of Axholme have sent to the hon. the Commoners of the United Kingdom of Great Britain:
The drainage of a large part of the area of the West Riding has its outfall in the River Trent at Althorpe in the Isle of Axholme by means of rivers and large drains which run for several miles through Lincolnshire and through or alongside the lands of your petitioners. The land in the Isle of Axholme is at a very low level and was reclaimed from waste and swamp in the reign of King Charles I, by a great drainage undertaking carried out by Sir Cornelius Vermuyden whose successors, the Hatfield Chase Corporation, are still the principal drainage authority for the district. The land has been converted into rich and fertile agricultural soil which produces abundant crops, but it is entirely dependent on the maintenance of an effective drainage. The problem of keeping the land drained and free from flooding is one which from time immemorial has taxed
the powers and resources of the landowners and drainage authorities to the utmost and they would be unable to cope with any added burden. The drains can only empty into the Trent at low tide and there are frequent times when for several days together the river is too high to permit of any outfall whatever. If large quantities of additional water are pumped into the drains from the mining areas the drains are not capable of containing the water. Even if the drains do not overflow their banks the sub-soil is of such a porous nature that the additional pressure of water in the drains will cause the adjoining land to become so flooded or water-logged as to destroy or damage the valuable crops grown thereon and render the land unfit for cultivation and it would eventually revert to its former state of swamp. The Bill contains no provision for the protection of your petitioners against the flooding of their land or for compensating them in case of damage. Clause 34 provides for the cost of drainage works for the protection of lands in the West Riding of Yorkshire which subside by reason of mining operations, but there is no provision for the cost of work for protecting the land of your petitioners. Such cost ought not to fall upon the landowners and agriculturalists who are already overburdened.
The inhabitants of the Isle of Axholme and their ancestors have converted this swamp country into a rich area. Many of them are very small holders. They employ no hired labour and are a very independent, industrious and hard-working community. I think the House should consider very seriously whether they should put any extra burden on that community. They are carrying on their agricultural work in a very satisfactory way, they are asking for no assistance from anyone, their drainage system is perfectly good at present, but they are in mortal terror for fear that any new arrangements should throw out of gear the drainage system of that island. I say island because it is called the Isle of Axholme, but, of course, it is surrounded by rivers. They see themselves faced with disaster if they are going to be heavily rated. This letter in the "Times" says:
I know of one estate close here which has 2,800 acres rateable under this Act to such an extent that the capital rates will more than double the freehold value of the land.
If that is what has happened about the Ouse I think these smallholders have grave reason and just cause to fear what might happen to them if their powerful neighbour, the West Riding of Yorkshire, pours water into the upper part of their watershed, and their land, which lies below the level of the Trent at high tide,
will be very much in danger by the breaking down of the banks. I have sometimes thought since this Bill came forward that it is very much like a wolf in Red Riding Hood's clothing. These smallholders cannot bear any additional expense. I should like to remind hon. Members of George Eliot's book, "The Mill on the Floss." Probably they all know of the book, but they do not all know that the Floss is this very same river Trent. The book was written at Gainsborough, and a great deal of it turns on water rights and floods. Mr. Tulliver was ruined by a lawsuit regarding his water rights, and I think scores of the house owners on the Trent and in the Isle of Axholme will have great reason to dread whether they may not also be ruined by lawsuits with regard to their rights. Also the book finished up with the tragedy of the flood of the Trent, so that you realise that the Trent can at times be a very dangerous river. We have, of course, the eagre coming up from the Humber. It is said to have a wave 4 feet high. I have motored in many parts of the Isle of Axholme, and the road near the river has to be protected by very strong embankments.
This is a very long Bill of some 52 Clauses. I hear a rumour that the third part may probably be withdrawn. The third part concerns mineowners and mines, but that will not relieve my constituents in the Isle of Axholme. We wish Part I and Part II to be thrown out. It is a very serious matter for a drainage authority of another county to come and seek powers in the area of another county council. The main scheme of this drainage is by gravitation. The land in the West Riding of Yorkshire is very much higher than in the Isle of Axholme. I have a map that shows how they bring water down from the West Riding at a higher level than the land in the Isle of Axholme. There are two pumping stations, and when we want to drain the land in our own area we may have to pump water to get it into the drains. These drains are carried at a certain height and then emptied into the Trent. Sometimes for three weeks the tides in the Trent are so high that there cannot be any outfall of water from the Ouse drains. The House will realise what a great deal of attention the inhabitants of that part of the country pay to their drainage.
I have looked through the Bill, and there is no obligation on the West Riding County Council to give notice to any Drainage Authority or any other county council through whose area the water may pass from the West Riding. The right of objection is limited to certain people. I would also like to draw attention to Clause 12, Sub-section (11). The Minister is bound to confirm an Order if there has been no objection lodged against that Order. The Minister should consider very carefully this Bill. The promises of the former Minister of Agriculture with regard to the Ouse drainage have been falsified. He said on more than occasion that if people received no benefit they would not have to pay. He said, speaking on the Ouse drainage Bill, on 21st January, 1921:
Land which cannot be benefited by the operation of the Drainage Board is free from any liability to pay drainage rates to the Board, even if it is included in the drainage district.
I hope the present Minister will consider the matter very carefully. I understand that he is in favour of giving power to drain a certain part of the country. I think he should also maintain and uphold the tradition of Local Government, I do not think the county council of one county should have power to come into another county in this way. The Bill says that notice may be sent to the occupier-owner affected. It only says that notice may be sent. It does not say that there is any obligation to send the notice. It further states that notice can be given by publishing it in a newspaper circulating in the locality. It is very little protection to the owners and occupiers that the notice may be published in some local paper. If I held or occupied land near some drainage authority, and it was provided that they could bring an Order forward and give me notice simply by publishing it in the newspaper, I should feel very uneasy and very dissatisfied with that sort of protection.
Many of the inhabitants of the Isle of Axholme are market gardeners, and they produce very fertile crops. In driving through the island I noticed in some parts large stones beside the road, and I was informed that these were originally the only tracks through that part of the swampy land. Before there were any roads and before the land was drained
they had these stones as tracks, and the pack horses carried their loads over the stones. That shows the very swampy condition of the country in those days. The inhabitants of the island are alarmed at the prospect of this Bill being passed; they have heard rumours that their powerful neighbour, the West Riding, was going to apply for powers to drain through their district. I ask the House to consider this matter very carefully before they allow powers of such a vague and indefinite character to be given to any private drainage authority. If these powers were more definite, and if they were limited entirely to their own county, we should not object, but we foresee a great deal of litigation on this matter. For these reasons I ask the House to reject the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Living as I do in South Lincolnshire, it would be strange if I were not in favour of the best possible system of drainage, but when an upland authority seeks power to send its surplus water, a water in excess of any for which the existing works have been constructed, through a lowland area without making any return to the people who have constructed the works in the lowland area then I am opposed to the proposal on principle. It is not right. The provision originally made for drainage in this area by a great Dutch engineer, Vermuyden, was adequate, and is still adequate, for the conditions of the locality, and when extra water is to be sent through those channels, then provision should be made to compensate the local authorities or to take over from them the responsibility for the maintenance of the embankment that had been made, and if such compensation were to be made it could only be made by starting at the outfall of the river and constituting an authority which would have power to deal with the drainage from the source to the sea. That is the only means which I can conceive by which a proper system of drainage could ever be constructed where the water from the higher land goes down through the lower levels in which works adequate for the period when they were constructed, and still adequate for the people in that locality, have been constructed.
The fact that no such authority is constituted is one reason why I would reject this Bill at once. If the Bill does not make provision for the West Riding authorities to encroach on the borders of another county—I am very doubtful from the wording of the Bill whether it does—if they have no right to encroach, say, by erecting a pumping station in immediate proximity to the borders and sending the water over in a manner for which no provision is made, then they should, in the first instance, have made arrangements with those interests in the low land before coming to this House to attempt to override those interests. This is an action to which the House should not give its consent. It may be said, "You can bring forward your objections in Committee." My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Major Molson) has given one excellent reason why this Bill should not be permitted to go to a Committee. These authorities who are objecting, like the Isle of Axholme, are comparatively poor people. They are not in a position to fight Bills in Committee in the House of Commons. It is all very well for a rich authority, which has sufficient funds to promote Bills, to say to those who object to a Second Reading that their objections can be investigated in Committee. But the various small authorities concerned, not only those outside the county, but those who are doing excellent work inside the county, should not have thrown upon them the onus of fighting against a powerful corporation like the West Riding in a Committee of this House. It is not fair, and this House should not consent to such a course.
The Bill does not take in any of the county boroughs but it takes in all the small authorities. When it becomes a question of drainage these large densely populated areas, with their highly finished roads, send a large amount of water through the drains very often in a very rapid manner. In the ordinary course the water that fell, when these works were constructed on agricultural lands or forest land that has since been cleared, reached the sea by a system of infiltration or slow drainage through the then existing water channels, but now the water comes down much more rapidly, and therefore the larger authorities who are responsible for this increased flow
should be the first to make a contribution, but they are not asked. The promoters are afraid to tackle them but they come on the small authorities. But within their own area there are at present drainage authorities who are doing their work efficiently, and powers are asked under this Bill to take over those authorities and impose taxation upon them. One Clause makes provision whereby expenditure up to £3 an acre can be imposed without any guarantee that the work proposed shall be carried out. It is monstrous to ask powers of that description.
The Reedness and Swinefleet Drainage Commission are a small authority. In their own area they drain some 5,000 acres of land. The work is efficiently carried out and it is a model in itself. I believe that the whole expenditure of this authority for the efficient drainage of 5,000 acres amounts to about £70 a year which includes the collection of rates. They have paid the total cost of the original works and in every sense they are a model authority. This Bill takes power by which that authority can be taken over. It can be incorporated in the general system of drainage and these people may suddenly find themselves saddled with enormous rates for works for which they have no necessity in a matter for which they have made adequate provision themselves. If the promoters of this Bill say that they have no intention of injuring this particular authority, and if they desire to proceed with the Bill, let them cut out this authority altogether.
There is another reason. The river flows along the frontage of this particular area. At spring tides or during periods of flood it becomes very high and the banks are more or less endangered by the passage of large steamers and by the floods. Under this Bill if a breakage occurs on the frontage of the people concerned they can have imposed upon them the cost of repairing the breach in the banks. In the early days in my part of the country, where the sea has been kept out since the time of the Romans, they had a very drastic method of dealing with them. But I am not sure that the policy of the West Riding is not equally cruel. At that time, if a breach occurred on a man's frontage, they stuck a stake in the breach, tied the man up, and allowed the
tide to come up and do the rest. But under this Bill they propose to ruin the people who have already made ample provision for their own drainage. This Bill should not be proceeded with further. It should be rejected on the grounds I have stated. The principal reason is the lack of financial power to fight adequately in Committee such a Bill promoted by so powerful a corporation. The interests against the Bill are small and divided, but I think I have said enough to cause the House to reject the Measure.

Sir NORMAN RAE: It will be within the recollection of Members of the House that during the later years of the War inquiries were held and investigations were made as to the possibility of bringing more land into cultivation, and so increasing the produce of the country. In the West Riding of Yorkshire those inquiries and investigations revealed a very grave state of affairs, and drew special attention to the fact that there was a vast area in the West Riding that was being very ineffectively drained. After considerable consideration the county authority decided to clear effectively one great dyke. They did this at very considerable cost: the result was remarkable. When the dyke was cleared, some 600 acres of land, which had hitherto produced very little, were brought into a high state of cultivation, and from that day to this they have continued to produce exceedingly good crops. This result naturally led the county council to make still further investigations, and to go further afield in their inquiries. The Drainage Act of 1918 was passed with the hope that it would have a good effect in this direction. The Ministry of Agriculture sent representatives down to the West Riding some time ago, in order to confer with the authorities with a view of forming a comprehensive authority which would have the necessary legal powers to deal with the whole situation. The Ministry's representatives spent a great deal of time on this question, and they did everything possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. They conferred with the drainage authorities which have been referred to by previous speakers, in so far as those drainage authorities were in the West Riding. They may have conferred also with those outside, but we are not immediately concerned with them. The
West Riding County Council did all it could to help the Ministry in these inquiries, but no matter what the proposals were, or what were the efforts made to reach a satisfactory end, the result was failure.
9.0 P.M.
Under the existing law there is no power, not even in the Ministry itself, to insist on farmers cleaning out their own ditches. The result has been that the West Riding County Council was compelled to give up the desire to bring about a better state of affairs, which anyone who investigates the question would know is vitally necessary, not only for the immediate interests concerned, but in the interests of the whole community. Hence this Bill. No matter what may have been said to-night, the Bill is founded mainly on the Lancashire Drainage Act, with the exception of Part III. There are certain drainage authorities in the West Riding that are doing their work fairly well. The West Riding County Council is willing, in so far as these other authorities are concerned, to insert a Clause in the Bill in Committee allowing their powers to continue. But there must be an overruling authority where the drainage authorities do not fulfil their duties. The House should know that there is a great portion of land in this part of the West Riding which was originally marsh land. It was brought hundreds of years ago into a very high state of production. The drainage was exceedingly costly and it was very successful. It was costly because so much of the land was, and still is, below the high water level of the Trent and the Ouse.
One hundred years ago, or thereabouts, we had a large number of Enclosure Acts in this part of the West Riding, and under those Acts no fewer than 22 awards were made which granted land, but in the awards there were covenants calling upon the owners to keep the dykes clean and to carry out drainage. Seventy-five per cent. of those awards have fallen into disuse, and to-day there is no existing authority to enforce fulfilment of the covenants entered into when the Enclosure Acts were passed. It is true that the land has been retained by the successors of those who received it, but the covenants have been utterly disregarded. I do not know that we need wonder very much at that, when we consider who those authorities were. I find that in one case the
village constable was the authority appointed to see that the drainage was carried out in a particular district. In another district it was left to the churchwardens of the established church, and in a third it was left to two or three of the largest farmers. It was their duty to see that the drains were kept clear, and the necessary funds collected. Those authorities have long been forgotten, probably in some cases willingly forgotten, and no effort has been made to awaken the churchwardens from their sleep, or from the rest which I hope they have duly earned.
We are told—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Major Molson) was very emphatic on the point—that we want to control the outlet to the Trent and to go into another county and interfere with its business. There is no such proposal in the Bill and we want to do no such thing. The whole drainage system of the Trent is based on long usage confirmed by Acts of Parliament, and this Bill alters nothing in that respect. It gives no new rights and asks for no new rights. Where my hon. Friend got his information from I cannot make out, but he has been grievously misinformed as to the intentions of the West Riding County Council in this matter. Did anybody ever hear of a Yorkshire man giving up anything that he believed to be necessary for the wellbeing of his county? Above all, no man ever heard of a Yorkshire man giving up anything of that kind to a man from Lincolnshire. I can assure my hon. Friend we intend to retain our rights and, when the proper time comes for us to prove our case upstairs, we shall be on the spot, prove our rights up to the hilt and maintain them. I would remind him that these outfalls of the Trent are artificial outfalls. One was made by Vermuyden, the great Dutch engineer, and another by one of the canal authorities, and these are the only outlets that have existed for many years for water from that part of Yorkshire. They were expressly made for the purpose. Let me repeat that the Bill does not seek to extend our rights. The rights which we maintain we possess through long usage and by Acts of Parliament.
Let us consider for a moment who is in favour of the Bill. One would think to
listen to the hon. Members who have moved and seconded its rejection that no one was in favour. My hon. Friend the Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) is one whom we all respect and to whom we always listen with great attention on matters concerning land and farming. What do his fellow farmers say of this Bill in this particular part of the West Riding? We have the West Riding Farmers' Union with 3,000 members, and we have a Farmers' Union round Doncaster with 500 members, and the vast majority of both these unions are in favour of this Bill in its entirety, and have passed resolutions to that effect after appointing a Committee and baying the Bill investigated. It is the absolute duty of a great council like the West Riding County Council to preserve in every possible way the trust given to it under Act of Parliament. That Council, representing all sections of the community, has endorsed this Bill by a majority of, I believe, 10 to one. Others say—we find a residuum in all classes of society who will say—something to this effect: "We want to do our duty, but we object to compulsion. We agree that the land should be preserved, but we object to being compelled to preserve it." All I have to say is that no government in any country in the world could be carried on under such conditions. It is the policeman behind the law, who, in all countries, maintains law and order. Withdraw that and we know what would happen. I do not charge any of our opponents with wishing to see this land returning to swamp, but, so far, they have offered no alternative to our proposal. Do not let us forget that we are dealing with a district which contains a great and growing community, where drainage schemes are becoming more and more difficult and where they will become still more difficult unless the whole question is dealt with.
There is a stream flowing through this district which is, I will not say tainted with sewage, but absolutely polluted with sewage, which in some way or other has got into it. I should think part of it has escaped from some of the sewage schemes which have become defective owing to the subsidence which is continually taking place. A smaller stream of perfectly pure clean water flows into this polluted stream. Looking at it, my
mind went away to the Mediterranean, where, over and over again, I have watched the waters of the Nile flowing into the sea. There, one sees the water for many miles round discoloured by the outflow from the Nile, but as one journeys north gradually but surely all the impurity seems to disappear. In the case of these two streams, I saw exactly the reverse taking place. This beautiful clean, pure water was flowing into a putrid mass—for it was neither more nor less—and seemed to have no effect upon it at all. What struck me still more was that the polluted stream flowed on for many a mile until it reached the Ouse, passing through rich agricultural land where cattle and milking cows were grazing. In the course of time these animals must have drunk this water. I said to a friend of mine there, "It is a terrible state of affairs that cattle and milking cows should drink from a stream of this description," and he replied, "That does not make any difference, there is something inside the cow which, if it drinks this dirty water, purifies and filters the water and leaves the milk perfectly pure." I do not understand the anatomy of the cow. I am not a veterinary surgeon, but I prefer to have milk from a cow which drinks fairly pure water, and such a state of affairs as I have described should not be allowed to continue.
Let me tell the House something more about this district, which, I am sure, will interest hon. Members. Three hundred years ago, when Charles I was on the throne, a great engineer, a Dutchman named Vermuyden, a man who understood his profession, a man of enterprise and courage, came over to this country and saw this vast area of swamp, nearly 100,000 acres in extent, producing little or nothing. With the knowledge he possessed, and the indomitable courage which was part of his nature, he believed he could drain this vast area and turn it from a swamp into rich productive land. He approached the ruling authorities of that day, and he was successful in getting from the Crown and the ruling authorities power to drain this land, and he had such confidence in this task that his offer was this: No cure, no pay. The bargain was struck on those terms. One-third of the recovered land was to go to the Crown, one-third to the freeholders, who had Some claims, I was going to say, direct
or indirect, and one-third to Vermuyden, and those who were assisting him in this great enterprise.
But there were vested interests in those days, just as there are to-day, and just as there have been from time immemorial, and will be, I suppose, to time immemorial. Who held those vested interests? There were men who went over those waters in flat-bottomed boats and shot wild fowl, and they sold their wild fowl, and they said, "If these lands are drained, what is going to become of our living; to whom are we going to turn for occupation?" There was another set of men, who spent their time in catching eels, and who sold eels, and they had a grievance, and a vested interest in these eels. If there was no marsh there would be no eels, and so they were opponents of this scheme. There was a third set of men, who spent their time walking over this district on stilts, the stilt-walkers, who took messages and who did other jobs of a similar character, and they had a vested interest, and wanted to know, if they were deprived of their livelihood, who was going to find them an occupation. It is amusing and interesting to look back upon. But what was the effect of these vested interests? These vested interests fought so determinedly that two regiments of soldiers had to be sent down from London in order to protect Vermuyden in his work and those who were helping him in draining these vast marshes.
I sometimes think that vested interests fight harder than any other class of interests, and they seem to have the lives of Kilkenny cats, for when you think they are dead, they come back to life once more. The legislature of that day had to pass an enactment under which interference with the sluices that Vermuyden put into the great dykes that he constructed to carry this water away was a capital offence. These vested interests, or base men employed by the owners of the vested interests, actually tore up the sluices and destroyed the banks after much of the land was drained, and let the water back again, and once more this land became marsh, but, despite all, Vermuyden succeeded, and this vast area was drained, and from that day to this the greater portion of it has remained good agricultural land, land which, I am told, taken at a low average
rent, fetches even £2 per acre per annum, bad as agriculture is. Like many another great benefactor of the human race, Vermuyden died poor. He was so harassed by law suits after he had accomplished the work that, like Sir Hugh Myddelton, who constructed the New River, which hon. Members from London know, he died actually in poverty. Whatever may be said about this House of Commons or any other House of Commons, I will not believe, I cannot believe, that they would be parties to allowing this land gradually to go back to swamp. Hundreds of acres have already gone back, and unless this House does something of an effective character—and we believe this Bill would produce something of an effective character—the land must gradually go back to the state in which it was 300 years ago, so I beg of the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Major MOLSON: Might I ask whether the successors of Vermuyden, the Hatfield Chase drainage authority, are not also opposing this Bill?

Sir N. RAE: As far as I know, the Hatfield Chase drainage authority was formed much after Vermuyden's time, but a great portion of their land was land that was rescued from marsh by him, and I understand that the West Riding County Council are perfectly willing to come to an arrangement with a drainage authority like the Hatfield Chase authority.

Major MOLSON: But they are petitioners against the Bill, are they not?

Sir N. RAE: I think there will be no difficulty with that matter at all.

Mr. LEACH: I believe it is the almost uninterrupted practice of this House to permit a Bill of this character to go to Second Beading. I represent a constituency which forms part of the area of one of the authorities opposing this Bill, and, notwithstanding that fact, I am desirous that the Bill should proceed to the Committee stage, and if I can get from the sponsors of the Bill certain assurances which I believe they can give. I shall be quite ready to vote for the Bill. In that connection, I would like to remind the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir N. Rae) that I shall be returning good for
evil, because it is hardly a year ago since the West Riding authority were completely successful in killing a local Bill, in which the Cities of Bradford and Leeds were vitally interested, on its Second Reading, so I trust that the attitude I am taking will appeal to him. The West Riding wishes to consolidate its drainage powers, and that is something, surely, to the good, but within this Bill the definition of those powers seems to us a little vague. There are four county authorities, at all events—Bradford, Sheffield, Halifax, and Rotherham—which are decidedly uneasy in regard to them. It is not clear from this Bill whether the jurisdiction of those four authorities over their own properties within the area of the West Riding is not going to be weakened.
Some of these authorities have reservoirs in the area of the West Riding, and the collecting areas for such reservoirs may be affected by Part 2 of the Bill. Again, we have sewage works within the area of the West Riding, and these, too, may be affected. One of the Clauses of the Bill gives complete protection to railway companies and to canal companies in regard to any action that the West Riding may see fit to take on matters of drainage. I do not understand why similar protection cannot be given to the local authorities which are seeking it, and when I remind the House that Bradford itself possesses a railway, and runs that railway, which is situated in the area of the West Riding, surely there must be a case for similar protection being given to my city as is being given to railway companies and canal companies. The county boroughs I have named have been in negotiation with the West Riding for some time, and I am credibly informed that an agreement is on the point of being reached in regard to these protective Clauses we are seeking. If the sponsors for the Bill can give us some assurance on these matters we shall be prepared to support them on the Second Reading so that the necessary Amendments may be made later on in Committee.

Mr. PALING: As a Member living in a constituency that is very badly affected now by the question of drainage, or better still the lack of drainage, and will be more badly affected as the years go by owing to subsidence, naturally I have taken a very keen interest in this matter. That
being so, I have listened perhaps with greater interest to the reasons adduced as to why this Bill should not pass. I was rather amazed at the first speaker when he said or intended to convey the impression that the West Riding was seeking powers over the Lincolnshire County Council area. I venture to say that he must be wrong in that. If I understand aright, all that will occur is that the rivers into which these waters will run run through the Lincolnshire area, always have done, and are the natural waterways and drainage ways for that part of Yorkshire. He states that this Bill is not like the Lancashire Bill by virtue of the fact that all Lancashire drainage ways empty into the sea and ours do not. He cannot expect Yorkshire to bring the sea up to the edge of their boundary.

Major MOLSON: I should like to explain that there is in this Bill the statement that
The council may remove or otherwise interfere with any mill-dam weir or other obstruction whether within or outside the drainage area which affects the flow of water in any river watercourse or drain in any drainage area.
To say that these are natural watercourses is incorrect. They are not natural. They are artificial. Those are my two points.

Mr. PALING: I say that they have been the natural watercourses for two or three hundred years, or, at any rate, for long enough to establish a claim to them, and that is all we are seeking to do at present. The hon. and gallant Member would be the first to admit that if somebody between the sea and the land to which he refers that have been so well-drained put an obstacle that was preventing the water getting away from the land he is talking about, he would be the first to desire to get rid of that obstacle, and the West Riding is simply seeking to do the same thing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir N. Rea) that Vermuyden did do a lot in regard to the drainage of these particular areas, and the hon. Member opposite objects to what he calls interference. It would not be interference at all, but, in any event, we can take that parallel still further back. I was reading a book the other week connected with Doncaster and district history, which said
that the people objected to Vermuyden doing anything of the kind. Probably the ancestors who lived on the land referred to now were the people who threatened him with his life and ran him out of the place.
I would like to say a word about the memorials which have been presented and the objections to this particular Bill. Here is a statement, which says:
The Bill is opposed by owners of upwards of 150,000 acres of lands and underlying minerals situate in the West Riding (on whose behalf this statement is issued), by the South Yorkshire Coal Trade Association and the West Yorkshire Coal Owners' Association (representing practically the whole of the mineowners in the West Riding), by the Mining Association of Great Britain, by the whole of the existing statutory drainage authorities in the county, by the county councils of Nottingham and Lindsey, and by a number of local authorities.
I can understand some of the mineowners opposing this. The probability is that if this Bill is put into operation they would have to do something more to drain the area that subsidence has allowed to be flooded than they have done in the past. I think this House would agree that that would not be a bad thing. Again:
By the whole of the statutory drainage authorities in the county.
There are authorities in the area mentioned by the first speaker who do excellent work, but in my area there are authorities who do exactly the opposite, and I can imagine some of these people opposing this Bill because if the West Riding did become the drainage authority they would do their work well and would shame these other authorities. Again:
By a number of local authorities.
I suggest that from the huge number of local authorities who have had this Bill explained to them in the West Riding it will be found that some of them who have expressed their dissent have after an explanation being given changed round and supported the Bill. In addition, I would say that thousands of miners who live in districts affected by this drainage Bill in nearly every case have passed unanimous resolutions asking for it to become law.
In regard to my own particular district, I represent Doncaster and the immediate neighbourhood. As everybody knows, the
increase of population in that neighbourhood is tremendous. When I tell you that in the urban district of Bentley, where I live, between the last census and the one before the population increased by 107 per cent., that in the next urban area it increased by 105 per cent., and in Doncaster borough also by an enormous amount, you will have some idea of the increase of population that is coming into these districts. I would like to leave that and to state what is likely to occur. It will probably be in a few years' time the biggest coal mining district in the whole of Great Britain. Already about 14 shafts in the immediate neighbourhood of Doncaster are sunk or in process of being sunk, and I understand that six others are contemplated within the next year or two. That ring will gradually grow bigger, because I am led to understand that coal exists for miles round. This land is for the moment nearly all low-lying, and one place in my own district I believe it is only 16 ft. above sea level. You can imagine what is going to happen there if subsidence takes place, as it is doing, and will and must continually do while these mining operations go on. I will try to give an idea of what this means now, and will mean in the future. There has been published in Doncaster a book called the "Regional Town Planning Scheme," edited or got up by Professor Abercrombie and a Doncaster architect and surveyor, both recognised as experts. These people have set out a town planning scheme, which, if put into operation, or if 50 per cent. of it were put into operation, would make Doncaster a town to be proud of, and it is calculated that in the next 10 or 20 years the population that exists now must double, and that Doncaster must become an industrial town. Fortunately, some of these people are looking to the future and hoping that Doncaster will be an industrial town of which we shall be proud and not ashamed, and they issued a town planning report and one of the experts whom they asked to contribute information to that report is Mr. Humble, a mining expert and engineer and who curiously enough has a brother who is a director of one of the huge colliery companies in the district, and has headed one of the memorials presented against this drainage scheme. But I am going to use the other brother's
evidence to prove that this is necessary. He says:
The total thickness of coal workable in and round about Doncaster is about 35 feet.
He suggests—and this is based on his long and very varied experience—that the probable subsidence when the whole of the minerals are exhausted will be 21 feet. I do not want to alarm hon. Members because the time when the minerals will be exhausted is far distant. I agree; but in any event if a 21 feet subsidence takes place in a locality which is only 16 feet above the sea level now a very serious state of things may come into operation. To go on. He says:
The probable subsidence within 100 years"—
and nearly 12 or 14 have gone since operations were first started—
will be nearly six feet.
In my district the subsidence, after taking up the first seam of coal, was 3 ft. 6 ins., and every bank and every riverside in my district have had to be lifted to that extent. Colliery companies are sending in these objections, but, as a matter of fact, some of the colliery companies have realised their responsibility in this matter, and have taken steps where subsidences have taken place to build banks and strengthen and keep the waterways intact. I understand, indeed, I know, that this Bill in the case of any colliery company which does that does not intend to interfere at all. They have started work in a mining town in my district, but no interference will take place, and I may say this: it is admitted in this scheme again that the Bentley Colliery Company have up to the present by the work they have already done saved at least 1,000 acres of the best farm land from being entirely flooded. Mr. Humble goes on to say that the probable output in this district will be 10 or 12 million tons per annum. I venture to state however, Mr. Speaker, that this is an under-estimate. These pits are very lucrative, and some of them are increasing their output every week. When I tell you that only last week I read in the papers of the case of one of them which had turned out 30,000 tons for that week, and you multiply that by all the weeks in the year with probably some 20 or 30 pits of that description, you will see what the estimated output is likely to come to! So that the rate of subsidence
that this man predicts of this scheme is likely to be increased rather than decreased. I can show hon. Members—so could other Yorkshire Members—areas in the West Riding of Yorkshire on the other side of Doncaster where coal mining operations have been taking place for the last 30, 40 or 50 years and where thousands of acres are lying derelict and flooded. The land that was amongst the best land in the county, beautiful farming land, has been out of cultivation for years and years, would now, after being allowed to go derelict, cost infinitely more to bring it back into its former position than it would had it been tackled at the time of the subsidence. We hope that in my district this Bill will come into operation so that our district in any event will be able to learn and benefit by the example that is set us a few miles distant and so avoid what has taken place there. Mr. Humble goes on to suggest this—and this is taken from a paragraph of what he has written:
The methods to adopt in regard to drainage and sewage works must always be conceived with the full knowledge that settlement must take place, and that provision for the same, as far as possible, must be made in engineering these important devices. If an extended scheme of electrical distribution of power such as the Markham group of collieries are putting down can be mutually or compulsorily arranged I see no reason why a single acre should go out of cultivation. It is simply a question of levels, of raising the river banks and the sides of the dyes to meet the continual subsidence taking place, plus a ease of electrical pumping from the areas affected from time to time which need not be a serious matter financially.
I submit that that case from a mining expert and engineer, and I believe one who is also interested in these companies, ought to be, and can be, calculated to be as impartial evidence as it is possible to get. I believe everybody in the district will also agree that this was very reliable evidence. Again, you have Professor Abercrombie, who suggests in the same book:
It is probable that owing to the low level of this region there must also remain large tracts impossible of drainage in any way than by artificial means. For this reason the suggestion of preparing a sinking fund appears to be the only safe solution of the difficulty.
That sinking fund and that solution is suggested in the Drainage Bill before us now. In addition, I had the pleasure rather less than two years ago of going
round with the West Riding Drainage Authorities, as then constituted, to examine some of this land. I went along the River Torne to where it leaves Yorkshire, and there are thousands upon thousands of acres on either side of these waterways which, with an expenditure of a very small sum of money upon drainage and the cleaning out of the waterways, can be reclaimed and made excellent farming land. It is assumed that this land should be allowed to remain derelict. Again, these people say that
the larger proportion of this land is excellent for farming if kept free from water, which there appears no difficulty to do except on grounds of cost. This valuable agricultural land to the East and Northeast of Doncaster can be made to produce the whole or a greater proportion of the vegetable and dairy produce necessary for a large industrial population which will be located in this area. The provision of means of keeping the land clear of water is a national necessity, and the opinion expressed by some mining engineers that it might be advisable to discontinue pumping, and thus allow the land to become sterile cannot be acquiesced in on the narrow ground of industrial cheesparing.
So I could go on, quoting from expert after expert in my district, who are taking a long view of this matter, and who are backing this Bill for all they are worth because they know that in this Bill lies the salvation of the future land that is going to be subject to subsidence, and also the salvation of thousands of acres of land already flooded. Again, in my particular urban district we have built houses of very good character under the 1919 Housing Act, and even now under present circumstances after a heavy rainfall for days, and in some cases weeks, the gardens outside the houses are flooded. I ask hon. Members to imagine, if they can, what is going to be, if subsidence continually takes place, the state of these houses and these grounds? What is to be the inevitable outcome? We are asking you to take a long view of this, and to have some regard to the health of thousands of the industrial workers who are pouring into this district, and who must continue to pour in as these coalfields continue to be opened out. We are asking you to have some regard to the evidence of our own medical officer of health who month after month has dealt with the matter, and who only a few weeks ago said that he was alarmed as
to the future unless something was done. Our district was getting like a saucer and would be filled with water if something was not done to rectify the situation in the near future. I could go on quoting evidence from other people of this description who are alarmed at this, and who are hoping that this Bill will be carried because they see in it the only hope of mitigating these evils, and keeping this district healthy and free from stagnant pools on acre upon acre of land, and of giving a chance to the children of that district of a free and healthy life, which cannot be the case when these stagnant pools are present. I ask the House to try and do these things from the point of view of the population that has to live in this district and from the point of view of reclaiming the land for food-producing purposes, and if they will do that then I think this Bill will pass by a large majority.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I think we shall all agree that this has been a most interesting discussion. The speeches have been eloquent, sympathetic, and imaginative, that perhaps I owe an apology to the House for coming back to such a prosaic subject as the Bill itself. I am not, personally, conversant with the local technical details of this Bill, but I want to say that my Ministry is in favour of its general principles. We are all agreed that drainage is a good thing. We are all agreed also that there are many parts of the country where drainage systems do not now exist, and where they might very well be set up. In some places there are in existence admirable and efficient drainage boards. To set up a drainage board under existing circumstances depends a good deal upon the energy and enterprise of a particular district. In some places that enterprise has been abundantly forthcoming, whilst in others it has lagged behind.
The object of this and similar Bills under the Act of 1918 is to empower county councils to set up drainage boards in parts of their own county where they do not exist, or where there is an inefficient existing drainage board to allow them to apply to the Ministry of Agriculture for an order giving them power to take over the work of that inefficient drainage board. That is all that the
first two parts of this Bill ask us to do, and that is the extent of the powers taken under it. The strange thing about this Debate is that this Bill has not been opposed by Yorkshire, but it seems to have frightened the inhabitants of a neighbouring county. I am told that these fears are almost premature, and, at all events, they are quite groundless.
The chief district concerned is that which is served by a drainage board known as the Hatfield Chase Drainage Board. It is with regard to this board that the question which affects Lincolnshire arises. It is not proposed to alter the status quo in that respect in any way. Yorkshire has certain rights of drainage through a part of the County of Lincolnshire, but they are prescriptive rights of long standing. They may be bad for Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire, but, at any rate, they are not altered one jot or tittle by this Bill. Whatever Lincolnshire has to-day it will have when this Bill is passed, and whatever privileges Yorkshire has to-day it will have still after this Bill becomes law, and it will not be affected or diminished in any way whatever. As regards the other drainage board which has been mentioned, I am informed that the same state of things will happen, and it is not intended to interfere with that in any way.
The Lincolnshire people seem to be unduly timorous as to their piratical neighbours from Yorkshire, but I would remind them that none of these powers can be taken over except with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. That is provided for by the Bill, and I have been the Minister of Agriculture long enough now to know that, in common with other Departments, if we can avoid a row we will. Therefore I do not think that the Lincolnshire people need be in the least apprehensive that we shall allow a new burden to be put upon them which will cause ill-feeling. So much for the general principles of the Bill.
I wish to say a word about Axholme. This raises an engineering point upon which I cannot give an expert opinion, and it is a matter which will have to be threshed out in Committee. The people of Axholme, I think, may sleep in their beds with perfect safety for the rest of their days. So much for the Bill in general, and the principle it contains. Now I come to Part III. This introduces
a very big question indeed, namely, the question of subsidence. We have had a most interesting and eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), full of information on that particular subject. I think we all felt that we knew more about subsidence than we had known before when the hon. Member sat down, and I think we ought to be grateful to him for such an interesting and exhaustive study of the question.
I think it must be obvious that here was a very big question indeed. Indeed, we think it is too big a question to be dealt with in a private Bill that does not affect the whole county, but merely affects one area of a particular county and which is not essential to the successful working of this Bill. The Government has been considering this question as a whole, and we shall watch and consider the question very carefully. I think, however, the House will agree that we cannot deal with this question in such a piecemeal fashion by a private Bill. When a decision is come to, the Government will announce its intention on the subject, and will deal with the matter as one applying to the whole country. If I may offer a word of advice to the promoters of the Bill, it is that they should not press Part III, but should proceed with the rest of the Bill. If they do that, the Government are prepared to say that they view the Bill, with Part III excluded, with favour.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: Might I ask what are the intentions of the Government with reference to a Bill on the question of subsidence?

Major FAWKES: I feel that the Minister of Agriculture has already answered the greater number of the criticisms which have been levelled against this Bill.
With regard to the Isle of Axholme, and waters from the West Riding being poured in increasing volume into that area, I wish to say there are only 27,000 acres of the West Riding that drain into the River Trent. There is a drain called the Folly drain which surrounds on one side the Isle of Axholme. It comes down between the River Torne and the Isle of Axholme, which is under the control of the Lindsey County Council.
With regard to the necessity of this Bill, I should like to tell the House that
it originated really from the Agriculture Committee of the West Riding County Council. The interest that is now so apparent in that county with regard to drainage began during the time of the Great War. As is well known by hon. Members of this House, a large area of grass land, and very good land, was ploughed out. When the Executive of the West Riding County Council went down into this particular area, and also other areas in the West Riding, they found there was a large amount of land which was suitable for plouging out, of a arable nature, and black land, but they could not order it to be ploughed out, because the drainage was so bad, not that cur predecessors had not drained it, but the present generation had been neglectful in cleaning out and scouring out the big drains, and so prevented the under drains in many areas from being effective. During that time there were certain areas taken in hand under D.O.R.A. German prisoners were used to clean out and scour out these drains, and the water was lowered in some cases as much as 2 feet 6 inches to 3 feet. They had probably never been down to that level for 30 or 40 years. The drains were then able to function. The War Executive Committee, with the aid of contractors, were able to get on to that land, and grow good crops of corn. It was felt it would have been very much better if they had been able to grow the corn straight away when it, was wanted, rather than have to farrow the land and wait a long time for it to dry out before they began to cultivate.
10.0 P.M.
The West Riding Agricultural Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, has been going about the West Riding, and has found that in many parts of the West Riding, not only in the Doncaster area, a very great number of the Enclosure Awards under Acts of Parliament are dormant, and that the authorities are not functioning. A great many of them, we have been told, are out of date, and cannot, without new Orders, be put in a proper state so that they can function at the present day. In one area there are 22 Enclosure Awards. There are seven drains set out which are supposed to be cleaned out regularly by these owners or their predecessors, who were allowed to enclose certain common and waste lands and add them to their freeholds. It is a fact that they still own, and draw a certain
amount of rent from, these lands, but a great many of them have forgotten that their obligations also ought to be carried out. This Bill gives the West Riding Authority power to say to these small authorities—if one may call them so—" If you do not clean out the drains, which it is your duty to do under Act of Parliament, the West Riding County Council, after giving you ample time, will come along and do it for you, and charge you." Naturally that is objected to by a great many people, but it is for the good of the whole community and for the good of agriculture. I believe there are some hon. Members who have come to this Debate, if what I have heard is right, to vote against this West Riding Drainage Bill. I hope there are no Members of this House who take the line that if they own land in this country they are entitled to allow that land to go to waste and become a wild fowl shoot. If there are any such Members in this House, I do not think their constituents can be aware of their views, because we in the West Riding contend that, in the present state of agriculture, it is essential that all the drainage works which are in existence shall function. I happen to be a farmer, and I think all farmers will agree that drainage is the master-key of production. Any farmer who tries to farm his land when his under-draining is not functioning is heading for the Bankruptcy Court. I may be told that it is not as bad as that. I can inform those hon. Members who are not conversant with agriculture in a practical way, that if a man's land be wet at the bottom he will be late with his seed time and with his harvest. He will have his horses standing in the stable more days than they ought his crops will ripen late, and unevenly. He will send his wheat or his oats to market to sell: he will be told that they are a poor sample, and he will not get a fair price. With regard to the texture of soil, it is well known that if your drains are not functioning it lowers the temperature of your soil and sub-soil. Therefore, instead of your grass growing, like it does on well-drained land, all the year round, it will only grow for about three months in the year, and what does grow is blue grass, and a lot of grass is what we call "fill belly," which is of no use at all.
From the agricultural point of view, I maintain it is absolutely essential that this Bill should go through. It will not affect any drainage authority that is doing its job. I hope and feel sure the House will pass the Bill, which will fall with a heavy hand upon the delinquents. A great many of these delinquents are doing an injury to their neighbours. Those who are farmers know that there are a few farmers who do not clean out their drains. If you happen to farm above a man who does not clean out his drains, you cannot clean out yours till he does so; he defies you. I may be told by some hon. Members who are against this Bill that we have a remedy under the Act of 1864. It costs three or four times more to go to law and to make your neighbour do his job than for you to do it for him. This Bill, and the Lancashire Act of Parliament, enables the farmer to write to the County Council and tell them that he has a certain neighbour who has not cleaned out his ditch. The letter goes, and that delinquent very soon does it. I am told on very good authority that in some parts of Lancashire already it has had a wonderful effect by stirring up the farmer to do his work, so as not to injure his neighbour.
I may be told that the farmers in the West Riding are against this Bill. The Doncaster branch of the Farmers' Union have passed a resolution unanimously in favour of it, and the West Riding Executive of the Farmers' Union have passed a resolution in favour of it. The West Riding County Council have twice given a solid majority in favour of the Bill; all sections of the county council, by 10 to one. We are told by the objectors that there is no public demand for this Bill. Surely the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, as it is in these democratic days, is supposed to voice anyhow the opinions of a very large number of the inhabitants in that Riding, and the Farmers' Union surely does not represent the worst farmers in that particular area. Therefore, on the grounds of agriculture, there is an outstanding case in favour of the Bill.
With regard to the upkeep of the roads, the Highways Committee of the County Council say that if this Bill does not go through it will make an enormous addition to the cost of the roads in the West Riding. We all know that the cost of the maintenance of the highways is big
enough already. If the water be allowed to lie just under the crust of the road the effect of heavy motor traffic will be disastrous. We have heard of the new population there is going to be in that area. Every new pit means a new village and ten thousand inhabitants. They have to live. They have to have food and everything else taken to them, and therefore there is going to be an enormous amount of traffic. Unless this level of water is going to be cut down, the roads will be spoilt, and the ratepayers of the West Riding will have to bear a much heavier burden than at the present time.
Last, but not least, there is the question of the public health; the health of the community. There are certain places in the Dearne Valley where, in the winter, you cannot see where the stream is. In th dry time you can go there and trace its course by means of the willow trees. In the summer time microbes and bacteria multiply there, and the health of the inhabitants of these mining villages—Cadeby or any other village—is bad. If any stranger, going into that particular area, went up a hill, he would leave a beautiful, lovely valley. When he got to the top, he could look down and he would see—I am sorry to use the expression—nothing more than a hell on earth. We contend, in the West Riding, that this ought not to occur in future. One hon. Member said it would cost more than the land is worth. We ask the House to help us in the West Riding, so that these conditions shall not occur in future and so that we shall be able to hand the land down to those Alio come after us in as good a condition and, we hope, in a better condition, than we found it.

Sir R. SANDERS: May I ask one question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who, I understand, is one of the promoters of the Bill? Do the promoters wish to go on with Part III, or not?

Major FAWKES: After what has fallen from the Minister, I would say, on behalf of the promoters, that they are prepared to withdraw Part III of the Bill.

Mr. TURNER: On a point of Order. I gather that the Minister of Agriculture has asked the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken if the promoters are prepared to withdraw Part III. As one of those who helped to promote the Bill, I object to its withdrawal.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Although a great number of hon. Members are interested in this Bill, I have a special interest in it, because I was a resident for very many years in Lincolnshire, and my early political efforts were in Lincolnshire. I know the district from Sutton Bridge to Gainsborough. I have listened, therefore, with deep interest to the grounds upon which this Bill is promoted, in order to see what justification there is either for Part I, Part II, or Part III. I understand it is common ground between almost all hon. Members in the House that they should follow the lead of the Minister of Agriculture, and say that Part III ought not to go through because it ought to be the subject of a different Bill. What does that mean? Does it not mean that this House is determined, on this as on other occasions, not to deal in a piecemeal fashion with a matter which ought to be dealt with on broad, public grounds, but reserves to itself the right to deal with large public questions in the manner in which it thinks they ought to be determined? Here we have a Private Bill, raising large public issues, with which the promoters propose to deal in their own fashion. If I follow the Minister of Agriculture, he advises the House not to give a Second Reading to the Bill unless Part III is withdrawn, and I understand that one promoter is ready to withdraw it, while the other is not.

Sir R. SANDERS: He is not promoter.

Mr. TURNER: I am a promoter by voting for it in the county council.

Sir E. POLLOCK: We want to know-exactly where we are, and I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member who, I understand, is in charge of the Bill, does he say that Part III is withdrawn or not? May I have a definite answer to that question?

Major FAWKES: Part III is withdrawn.

Mr. TURNER: Shame!

Sir E. POLLOCK: Then may I venture, Mr. Speaker, very respectfully to ask you a question, namely, what is the effect of the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill saying that part of the Bill is withdrawn? Does it moan that the Bill will come before the Committee as it is,
involving representation before that Committee of those who are opposed to Part III in order to see whether or not that undertaking is completely carried out or does it moan that, when the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, it deletes Part III of the Bill before it goes to that Committee? I think the House is very anxious to be quite clear as to what is the effect of the withdrawal in the House of Part III by the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Before you, Sir, reply, may I say that there is also a possible third question, as to whether the Instruction which stands in the names of several of us might be put from the Chair. In that case, an Instruction given by the whole House would be definite and final.

Major MOLSON: May I ask a further question? I should like to understand from you what is the position in regard to the portion of Lincolnshire that is involved in this Bill. We wish to oppose the Bill in tote, even if Part III is withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the points put to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Leamington (Sir E. Pollock) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), the position is that the Member in charge of the Bill for the promoters has announced that Part III, after the statement of the Minister, will be withdrawn. The effect of that is that, when the Bill is presented to a Committee upstairs, if it obtain a Second Reading, Part III will have been struck out of the Bill by the promoters, and, therefore, it will not be necessary for the parties concerned in Part III to appear, to see that that is done. It follows that the Instruction which appears on the Paper will be unnecessary. With regard to the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Major Molson), he and his friends, if they choose, will be able to divide against the Bill if, as I understand, they are opposed to what remains of it.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I thank you very much indeed for the exposition you have given. You have made it perfectly clear what will happen as to Part III; but I am a little uneasy as to Parts I and II. I have read the Bill very carefully, and,
if I may say so, as a Lincolnshire man, I still feel uneasy in regard to two points. One is that although a large amount of water comes down to the drains and pumps of Lincolnshire, that easement is limited, and it may be, as I read the Bill, that a great deal more water will come down, so that there will be an extra cost, an extra burden and an extra danger put upon Lincolnshire. I am not prepared, as the Bill stands, to sleep in my bed in perfect comfort because I feel that Lincolnshire may possibly suffer an increased burden. The next point I am not quite easy about is that 30 authorities have already petitioned against the Bill. When we find a Bill which is going to involve so much cost and opposition and in which, apparently, so little effort has been made to secure co-operation among all the authorities interested, it is a matter of grave doubt for this House whether they will regard a Bill in that condition as a suitable one to go before a Committee at all. But the point on which I want a little further enlightenment is this. The Minister of Agriculture has told us what, as he conceives it, are the general principles of the Bill. He attached a good deal of importance to some of the Clauses, and he indicated that with regard to some of the fears they were unfounded, and he stated the general principle of the Bill as he read them. As he read them they were innocuous. Can the House take it that when the matter goes before the Committee, accepting the general principles as stated by the Minister, it will be the duty of the Committee to see that the Bill, when it emerges from the Committee, only does embody those general principles as stated by the Minister from the Front Bench, or will it be possible for the Bill to be framed exactly as the Committee like, when perhaps the Minister of Agriculture himself will not sleep so soundly in his bed as he promises most of us will be able to do. I want to know, therefore, if it may be taken that the principles stated by the Minister of Agriculture are to guide the Committee, or is the matter entirely at large?

Mr. SPEAKER: Do I understand that that is a question put to me?

Sir E. POLLOCK: If you please, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: A Committee of this House cannot be dictated to by anyone. On the other hand, a Department concerned in a Bill makes a Report to the Committee, and it is the duty of the Committee to take the Departmental Report into its consideration. The experience of Members who have served on these Committees will, I think, bear me out when I say that much weight is attached to the Report of the Minister when the Bill is under consideration.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged for the exposition you have again given on what is a difficult point. Unless one could rely upon the fact that the Bill was to be rendered as inocuous as stated, I would not vote for it. It is stated that it is necessary that this area should receive proper drainage, and we have been told there are a number of authorities who do not do their duty and that it would be cumbrous to proceed under the Act of 1864. No one seems to have taken the trouble to read the Act of 1918 under which it is quite possible for the Ministry of Agriculture to step in and insist upon all the authorities doing their duty and seeing that the drainage is properly carried out. To go to the great expense of a new Bill, opposed, as it is, by 30 authorities, in order to have a new means of carrying out what can be carried out at present under Section 15 of an Act passed four years ago, seems to be a matter which ought not to trouble this House, or the energies of one of its Committees.
It is said that this Bill is founded upon the Act passed for Lancashire. That is no foundation to stand upon at all. I have here an extract from the Chairman's speech when the Preamble of that. Act was found proved in another place. He said:
The Committee desire me to say that they consider there are special circumstances which have been brought before us in connection with this Bill which make it desirable that it should proceed.
There were special circumstances, and there were very important circumstances. Lancashire was able to provide an outlet of its own into the sea. There is no such outlet which can be provided under this Bill. To make a long story short, and as Part 3 has now gone, I say that I regard this Bill with grave misgiving. I have listened to the grounds put forward in its support, and I cannot imagine why
so cumbrous and large a Bill should have been put forward to accompliish what apparently can be done by the mere application of the powers of the Minister of Agriculture, or of powers which could have been amplified if a small Bill had been asked for. It was quite unnecessary to bring forward a Bill of 52 Sections. If the matter goes to a Division I shall, on the whole, feel it my duty to vote against the Bill. I am glad to think that, in any event, we have got rid of Part 3, and I hope that the Committee of the House which deals with the Bill will deal with it drastically and not forget a single word of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, because it is alone on the assurance which he gave, and the description which he gave of this Bill, that no further opposition is now offered to the Bill, if it is decided that we should not go to a Division.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I rise to support the rejection of the Bill. In the Debate, the honours, or, rather, the majority of the speeches, seem to have been on the Yorkshire side. Much has been said about the merits of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. I have lived half my life in Yorkshire and half in Lincolnshire, so I think I can look at the question in an unbiassed way. One hon Member said that Yorkshire was not going to give anything away to Lincolnshire. That is not the way that we in Lincolnshire look upon the matter. This Bill is based upon the Lancashire Drainage Act. When that Act came into force, agreement had been made with all the existing drainage authorities over which the drainage passed. In the case of this Bill, no agreement has been made between the West Riding County Council and the authorities over whose land the drainage would pass. It has also been said that the outfall of the Lancashire drainage scheme was in Lancashire itself. The outfall of the West Riding scheme is in Lincolnshire. The outfall is in the River Trent.
My great objection to this Bill is that it is contrary to all the rules of local government. Why should one authority have the power to drain land over another authority's land? The Minister said that there might be no extra water, but if this scheme is brought into force large quantities of water are bound to be brought down. The water of the Trent
is very often much higher than the existing drains and sometimes it takes three weeks for the surplus water to be taken away by the Trent. If further drainage is to be carried off it is going to be much more difficult for the water to get away from the Trent. The remedy that I would suggest is that a comprehensive drainage scheme should be set up, one which would include all the authorities. I do not see why the Lincoln Authority could not work in co-operation with the West Riding Authority. We are quite friendly on the question, but we do want to have a sense of fairness, and we think that there ought to be equal representation when the proposed system passes over our land, and we want the West Riding to frame a comprehensive scheme by which the interests of both Yorkshire and Lincolnshire will be safeguarded.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think that some of the statements of an hon. Gentleman opposite need to be corrected. He stated that the Act of 1919 applied to the problem of drainage, and would solve the whole of the Yorkshire trouble without the new cumbrous Act that has been referred to. The Ministry agree that this power should be dealt with by the County Council, who should always seek the approval of the Ministry before they actually commence any large work. So from that point of view the whole thing has been examined, and the Ministry of Agriculture have satisfied themselves that the West Riding scheme is the better scheme of the two, and because of that fact they have accorded their support to the Bill. It has been suggested that this should be limited to the water courses leading from Yorkshire to Lincolnshire, but it should be understood that the outlets are not an exclusive luxury enjoyed entirely by the Lincolnshire people, and that they were obviously made to drain the land in question dealt with in this Bill, and if an extension or development is needed to carry off the volume of water, which may be drained through these outlets, the two county councils would tackle the problem, and to that extent both counties would benefit. When it is stated that 30 authorities are in opposition to this Bill, it should be remembered that the Yorkshire County Council have all the outlets for at least 77,000 acres of the 100,000 acres in Yorkshire. Consequently, this Bill seems to
me to be merely a Bill to compel those people who decline to carry out their drainage obligations to do so in the future.
I think that all those Members who were present when the Mover of the Second Reading made his statement will agree that the action of the county council is based not upon the desire to overwhelm small authorities, particularly those small Boards who are attempting to carry on the work and doing so with success, but that the county council have a genuine desire to get the maximum quantity of agricultural land under cultivation, and in doing so they have sought and secured the approval of the agriculturists of Yorkshire. I believe that hon. Members opposite sometimes sympathise with agriculture. If they are in sympathy with agriculture this evening they cannot fail to give their whole-hearted support to this Bill.
The fundamental reason for the promotion of the Bill is, first of all, the purpose of retaining the maximum quantity of land under cultivation, and, secondly, avoidance of the unnecessary destruction of vegetation. Hon. Members must know the evil effects upon the health of people when hundreds of acres of land are constantly under water. Trees are destroyed and a good deal of the beauty of the countryside is destroyed. From every point of view the county council have based their Bill upon a sound foundation. They desire to bring pressure to bear only when pressure appears to be necessary. So long as they do not exceed the powers conferred upon them under the terms of this Bill, they will be doing the best they can for the landowners and the people who reside on the land, for agriculture and for the beauty of the countryside generally. I feel sure that those who are opposing the Bill to-night will live to regret that they wasted two and-a-half hours of the time of the House in a futile effort to prevent an absolutely essential and inevitable move on the part of a progressive county council. I hope that the House will give an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have been amazed at the light way in which the Minister has given assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish to oppose the Bill
upon general grounds and as a point of principle. In this country up to now we have had for land drainage a code of laws under which ad hoc authorities have been appointed. In no case have the powers asked for in this private Bill been given to a county council except in Lancashire, which I will show later to be a special case. I think it is a matter of very grave importance, and that the House should realise what it is doing before it assents to the Second Reading. The Act of 1861 was reviewed and brought up to date by the House in 1918. Under the Act of 1918, when an area is under-drained or not properly drained, or an authority for drainage purposes is not carrying out its duty, there are means provided for setting up cheaply and expeditiously a proper drainage authority for that purpose, or compelling a defaulting authority to do its work. The West Riding County Council controls an enormous area. It is elected on a franchise different to that of the authorities appointed under the Land Drainage Act and the House is asked by the Bill to confer on the West Riding County Council, which has this enormous territory under its control, power to enforce a heavy expenditure on small local areas. It is true that the people who will be affected are represented, but their vote will be overborne by the votes of others who will not have to share in the expense forced upon these areas. That is a new departure and should not be accepted, and least of all should it be accepted in a private Bill.
There are in this whole area no fewer than 10 drainage authorities including the Hatfield Chase Corporation which has been in existence for a great number of years and they have always worked well. I can see no reason why some ratepayers should be enabled, through their representatives, to control and direct expenditure falling on places 40, 50 or 60 miles distant from their district when they themselves will not have to bear one penny of that expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] As the House evidently considers this Bill has been sufficiently debated, I will only point out one further ground of objection. The West Riding County Council, as I have said, controls a vast territory. It will have to set up, for the purpose of drainage administration in this area, a very expensive system. It will
have to engage engineers and a large staff, and bear heavy expenditure, and it is going to put this expense on to the occupiers of the land, for doing work which is now being performed at half the cost. I am not speaking without experience. During the War we had the agricultural committees of the county councils taking up this work. Drains were made and cleaned by the workmen of the county councils, and these bodies sought to recover the cost, and in nearly every case there was litigation. Any member who was a magistrate at the time, or any person who sat in Court when these cases were being heard, will bear me out when I say the work was extravagantly and expensively done, and the occupiers of land were mulcted in expenses which were three times the amount they should have been. Even then the county councils did not recover in more than half or three-quarters of the number of cases involved. I shall certainly vote against the Bill, and I would urge all those who are interested in rural matters to do the same.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: I want to put the position of a few of us Members who represent authorities which are unfavourable to this Bill. I have listened to the Debate this evening, and I have come to the conclusion that so much can be said on both sides that I think we should lot this Bill go to Committee. That is the only point I want to make, except to assure the Lincolnshire people that, although the Bill is in charge of the Gentleman who was once accused of being a lineal descendant of Guy Fawkes, and who is my friend and neighbour, I wish to say that piracy in Yorkshire is not what it used to be. I therefore ask this House to give this Bill a chance to go to Committee.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think a strong case has been made out for the objects of this Bill, that is to say, that there is a great deal of land which is waterlogged, and local agricultural opinion is naturally anxious to get it made cultivable. There is also a large population on this land to whom its condition must be deleterious. So far, everybody would be in favour of the objects of the Bill, but the promoters of the Measure seem to me to have made out a very poor case for their methods. There has not been much time, I admit, and I do not want to press it too far. Had it not been for the speech of the
Minister, I should have felt it my duty to vote against the Bill, but it appears possible, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the method which this Bill adopts may be so modified in Committee as to make it workable. I doubt it, because the main object of the Bill seems to me to be, from the agricultural standpoint, that one large, costly authority, with officials, as the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) has mentioned, is to deal with an agricultural area which can much better deal piecemeal with its own requirements, as is done satisfactorily, to my own knowledge. I have lived all my life in districts where the levels are below tidal level, and where the local drainage committees have had to keep their land properly drained in order to make it cultivable. That can be done at far less expense and far more effectively than by one great authority.
The inclination of these large authorities is always to be omnivorous and swallow up the little authorities, and I have the strongest objection to it. If I thought that was going to be perpetuated indefinitely in Committee, I would vote against the Second Reading of the Bill unhesitatingly, and say that the promoters

should prepare another Bill, in which their action would be, not to become themselves the authority, but to use their powers to make other people, who will do it better and cheaper, do their duty, to cure this waterlogged land. If that cannot be done in Committee, I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I understand that under Clause 12 of the Bill it may be possible for the West Riding County Council to take powers which would interfere with the drainage rights of boroughs like Sheffield and other county boroughs in the West Riding. I also understand there have been negotiations proceeding with regard to a Clause that would protect the county boroughs. May we have a pledge from the promoters that that Clause will be effective in protecting the boroughs in the future as in the present?

Major FAWKES: The county boroughs are not included, and I can give a pledge that they will not be included.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 82.

Division No. 113.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guv R.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Goff, Sir R. Park


Ammon, Charles George
Chapple, W. A.
Gosling, Harry


Apsley, Lord
Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Clayton, G. C.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Groves, T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grundy, T. W.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)


Barnes, A.
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Batey, Joseph
Cope, Major William
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Becker, Harry
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Halstead, Major D.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hancock, John George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Harney, E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Duncan, C.
Hartshorn, Vernon


Briant, Frank
Ede, James Chuter
Hawke, John Anthony


Broad, F. A.
Edmonds, G.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Brotherton, J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hayday, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Ednam, Viscount
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)


Buckle, J.
Ellis, R. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)


Buckley, Lieu.-Colonel A.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Falconer, J.
Herriotts, J.


Button, H. S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Cairns, John
Furness, G. J.
Hill, A.


Hirst, G. H.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Newbold, J. T. W.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stephen, Campbell


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Hudson, Capt. A.
Nichol, Robert
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hume, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Paget, T. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Paling, W.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Perring, William George
Trevelyan, C. P.


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Phillipps, Vivian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ponsonby, Arthur
Turner, Ben


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Potts, John S.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kenyon, Barnet
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wallace, Captain E.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rentoul, G. S.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Warne, G. H.


Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Lane-Fox, Lieut-Colonel G. R.
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lansbury, George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Webb, Sidney


Leach, W.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)
Welsh, J. C.


Lee, F.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Westwood, J.


Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wheatley, J.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lort-Williams, J.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Whiteley, W.


Lowth, T.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Whitla, Sir William


Lumley, L. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


M'Entee, V. L.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sandon, Lord
Winterton, Earl


Manville, Edward
Sexton, James
Wise, Frederick


March, S.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wolmer, Viscount


Margesson, H. D. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Maxton, James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wright, W.


Mercer, Colonel H.
Sinclair, Sir A.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Middleton, G.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Millar, J. D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)



Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Snowden, Philip
Major Fawkes and Sir Norman


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-ln-Furness)
Rae.


Molloy, Major L. G. S.




NOES.


Adams, D.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Ganzoni, Sir John
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gates, Percy
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Remer, J. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Bonwick, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rose, Frank H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harris, Percy A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bruford, R.
Hinds, John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bruton, Sir James
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Simpson, J. Hope


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Cassels, J. D.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Thornton, M.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lougher, L.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wells, S. R.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Nield, Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Isaac
Penny, Frederick George
Major Molson and Mrs. Wintringham.


Bill read a Second Time, and Committed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS' ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,187,005, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes and Payments to Associations for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,186,905, be granted for the said Service."

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PUBLIC SERVICES (ANDERSON COMMITTEE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. MIDDLETON: I desire to raise the question of the appointment of the Anderson Committee. This is the first opportunity which I have had of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House on a matter of very great importance to a very large number of public servants, including, I believe, soldiers, sailors, the men of the
Air Service, civil servants, including the Post Office, and, for all I know, even dockyard employés. I would remind the House that the announcement which was made of the setting up of this Committee came to Members by means of question and answer on the day before the House adjourned for the Easter Vocation, and no opportunity has been taken by the Chancellor of amplifying the statement he then made as to the nature of this Committee, the scope of its inquiry, and the way in which it intends to conduct its duties. There are, I suppose, several hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned in this proposal, and I would like to ask the Chancellor why, in setting up the Committee, he confined it to representatives of the employing classes, and why he did not put on it at least one, two or even three members of the wage-earning classes, in order that the Committee, in doing its important work, might have the confidence of the people whose interests are at stake. The Committee, so far as we know, can draw up its own terms of reference, which means that it is possible that every grievance and every injustice which the Civil Service, the Army and the Navy consider themselves to be suffering from in the way of conditions of employment and remuneration will be hung up for the next four or five years. I say that is conceivable, because the Committee might decide to take service by service, class by class, grade by grade, and put all their claims and demands through the close sieve of patient investigation and inquiry, while, in the meantime, these injustices and grievances would be allowed to continue. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us something of the scope of the committee's inquiry, and whether it is intended to be of a general nature or of a detailed nature.
I should like to appeal to him, even at this stage, to add to the Committee, if he insists on retaining it, one or two names drawn from the trade unions. The Committee would have been much more acceptable in form if, in addition to the three gentlemen he has nominated—with regard to whom I have no grievance personally—he had asked the Trade Union Congress to nominate three men, so as to have three and three, and not purely three representatives of the governing class. If he would do that it would go a
long way to allay the suspicion that has been caused throughout the Service; and to allay also the difficulties which will undoubtedly be created if he insists on the retention of the Committee in its present form. When we heard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appointment, the Civil Service felt it was going to get a square deal. The reputation of the Chancellor was such that Civil servants believed he was not capable of doing anything that would undermine their confidence. I should not like him to destroy the reputation which he has got by insisting on the very narrow form of the Committee of Inquiry which he has appointed. I hope he will be able to give the House and the Civil Service some assurance that the Committee will not be of the nature we fear.

Mr. AMMON: I want to say that, almost without exception, throughout the whole of the Civil Service, irrespective of grade, this particular Committee is viewed with a good deal of alarm and even with hostility. This afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement with reference to bringing up certain questions before the Lytton Committee or before the particular councils already operating—the Whitley Councils, and others—in the Civil Service. This particular Anderson Committee is looked on as being a blow aimed at the Whitley Councils set up in the Civil Service. It is not so long since we had to come to the House and complain of the abolition of the Civil Service Arbitration Board which was set up by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) when Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the complement of Whitleyism. Now it seems that here is a blow aimed at destroying the Whitley Council principle, as it operates in the Civil Service, altogether. The other point is that, judging by the only references that we have made to this Committee in this House, so far, it looks very much like a pilgrimage for life on the part of those particular gentlemen who have been appointed, and that the Civil Service will be kept in a position of uncertainty by not knowing whether or how the Committee is going to operate. There is no clearly defined line of action on one side in its operation, and it certainly appears that there is a bias largely aimed at the
rank and file of the Civil Service. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer be going to continue with this Committee, which I can assure him he will continue in the face of the opposition of practically every member of the Civil Service, from the highest grade to the lowest, surely he will give some measure of confidence by appointing to it someone who will be more or less representative of the services interested.

Mr. HANNON: I have taken the opportunity, since the appointment of this Committee, to make inquiries of a very large number of civil servants whether they accepted the Committee as quite competent to deal with the reference made to them; and, of that very large number, not a single reply was against the Committee as now constituted. I protest against the interpretation put upon the attitude of Members of this Committee by the two hon. Members who have raised this question.

Mr. AMMON: We can speak on behalf of over 100,000 organised civil servants against this Committee.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member fur Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) has raised this point, because I am quite aware that there has been a good deal of misconception about the creation of this Committee. It is not unusual for Governments to avail themselves of the work of special Committees to investigate special subjects, and in recent times we have had the Lytton Committee. Very recently there has been set up a Committee to inquire on behalf of the Home Office into certain circumstances affecting officers, and perhaps the most famous Committee of recent times was the Geddes Committee itself. What we call the Anderson Committee is really an offspring of the Geddes Committee, and hon. Members who are familiar with the Report of the Geddes Committee may remember that in Part 18 of their Report the Geddes Committee recommended the appointment of a Committee to continue their work, and to investigate the very subjects which are referred to the Anderson Committee for their particular investigation.
At this point, I should like to make a remark about what fell from the hon.
Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), because he is really under a misapprehension. There are two sides to any investigation of this kind, and I can quite understand that it may be possible that he, and perhaps many of his friends, think that this is a Committee designed entirely to beat down wages. It is not necessarily anything of the kind. It is a Committee to report, in the light of existing circumstances, how the scales of pay, work, and so forth are related to the scales throughout the country, and to see whether such scales as are in existence are, as compared with outside pay, fair or not. The reason that such an investigation is so necessary at the present time is two-fold. In the first place, we have had so many changes of recent years that it is very difficult to say what the inter-relationship should be; and, in the second place—and this I would commend particularly to my hon. Friends who have raised the question—in the very large world outside the Civil Service there is, and often has been, as they know, a great deal of thoroughly ill-informed criticism.
Many people believe, rightly or wrongly—I think very largely wrongly—that the Civil Service is a very privileged Service, that men have security in their posts, that their pay is high, that their work is not so great as work outside; and from that point of view the present is an admirable opportunity for getting the facts to put before people. I say without fear of contradiction, as far as the Civil Service is concerned, that the closest investigation will show they are not overpaid. I feel very confident of that, and from my experience of the Civil Service, I should say that most of them are not underworked. A Committee of this kind is appointed by the Government to collect and sift information, for the use of the Government. The question was raised at the time when the Geddes Committee was formed—a Committee which, by the time it had reported, had obtained a great deal, shall I say, of notoriety in this country. Their reports were quoted by all parties, and were used very largely as ammunition to do damage, and for the destruction of the Government for the time being. At the time the Geddes Committee was formed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) announced that that Committee was entering
on its work for the information of the Government, and as such the proceedings of the Committee would be conducted in private. But when the Committee had concluded its work, its Report was published. In the same way with regard to this Committee, when its work has been completed, a Report must be made to the Government, and it will be for the Government to decide whether it shall be published or not.

Mr. MIDDLETON: Does this mean that this Committee will sit in private, and will not receive evidence?

Mr. BALDWIN: I only mentioned the precedent of the Geddes Committee to explain what is the action generally of these Committees not set up by the House of Commons, but set up by the Government for their advice. The actual procedure of Committees of this kind is guided by the results of their own deliberations—they make their own procedure in that respect. My experience, apart from political experience, has always shown, not only that progress is much more rapid if the proceedings be conducted privately than it is if they be conducted in public, but also that you are very apt to get much fairer evidence, and come to a much sounder conclusion. When the report be made, whatever it may be, obviously it is for the Government to consider whether such recommendations, if any, as are made are recommendations that they wish to adopt, and if they do wish to adopt, then obviously no recommendations on any large scale could possibly under modern conditions, or I hope under any conditions, be put into effect without having the cognisance in some form or other of this House.
Having regard to the work that has to be done, all the Ministers have to do in appointing such a Committee is to try to choose the men, without fear or favour, who they believe will be able to accomplish the work in the least time, and with the utmost amount of skill. The danger is that if you once begin on a Committee of this kind to nominate anyone, whether it be man or woman, who would be looked upon as a representative of any particular branch of the service, or party in politics or any particular grade, you then obviously open the door for this, that having admitted one man or woman, you must
admit more. And, instead of a Committee that one hopes and believes will be absolutely impartial, you get a Committee consisting of a number of people who must be to a certain extent, shall I say, coloured by the predilections of those whom they are supposed to represent.
With regard to the three gentlemen who are chosen for this Committee, though I do not wish to say anything about them individually, none of them is connected with any questions which they have to investigate, with the solitary exception that Sir Herbert Lawrence, was for some years in the Army. But he has been for so many years connected with work outside, that he is certainly regarded among the men where he works rather as a civilian than as a soldier. I do not know whether it is quite a fair charge to make that these three gentlemen all belong to the employing class. Of course, in a way, I suppose, that is true, but at the same time they are not connected in any way to-day with any of the services which they propose to investigate, and from their wide experience I believe that they are the best qualified men whom I could get to examine these questions. And, while I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) for the kindly words he used about me personally, I should regret exceedingly if anything that I am doing in this connection should undermine any confidence which he is good enough to say that any people feel in me. I feel quite certain that if people only have patience, and do not allow their minds to be coloured by prejudice, they will find that there is nothing in the action of this Committee to which they can take objection, and I am equally certain that, when the time comes to receive their Report, there will be nothing in my action with which they can find fault, on the ground of partiality, or on the ground of illegitimate interference with the members of a class for whom I have every respect.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: Will it be within the terms of reference of this Committee to inquire into the alternative between the continuance of the bonus system, and the substitution of fresh inclusive rates of pay, and to make a recommendation on that subject?

Mr. BALDWIN: I had not as yet considered that subject, but, obviously, that
would be within the terms of reference, if the Committee thought fit to deal with it.

Captain BERKELEY: In the case of a similar Departmental Committee which the Government has set up with very wide terms of reference to inquire into the wireless question, it has not hesitated to nominate a Committee representative of the interests of all concerned. It has appointed members of wireless companies, representatives of scientific institutions in the country, and Members of this House. If that is a correct decision to follow when setting up such Committee, why in view of the case put forward by the hon. Members for Carlisle and North Camberwell should it not be possible to adopt the same procedure in this case and allow these people to feel that their interests are being safeguarded by having to some extent their representatives on the Committee? Further, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer the hon. Member for North Camberwell on the point of not superseding the Whitley Council in the Civil Service?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should be the last man in the world to supersede the Whitley Councils, because I have always been a great advocate of them. I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has referred to that subject, because I omitted to deal with it. I would remind the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) of a matter of which he is probably well aware—that I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation some little time ago on the subject of arbitration. I hope to receive them again before the end of next week, by which time I undertook to give a definite reply upon the subject upon which they came to see me. With regard to the first question mentioned by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Captain Berkeley), I do not think that the subject of broadcasting and this subject are at all on all fours, or even on all twos.

It being Half-past Eleven, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.